Related Interests

Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Description: Concerns about the best-selling herbicide Roundup® are running at an all-time high. Scientific research published in 2010 showed that Roundup and the chemical on which it is based, glyphosate, caus...

Concerns about the best-selling herbicide Roundup® are running at an all-time high. Scientific research published in 2010 showed that Roundup and the chemical on which it is based, glyphosate, cause birth defects in frog and chicken embryos at dilutions much lower than those used in agricultural and garden spraying. The EU Commission dismissed these ﬁndings, based on a rebuttal provided by the German Federal Oﬃce for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL. BVL cited unpublished industry studies to back its claim that glyphosate was safe. The Commission has previously ignored or dismissed many other ﬁndings from the independent scientific literature showing that Roundup and glyphosate cause endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer, as well as birth defects.

Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 3
About the authors
Michael Antoniou
Michael Antonoiu is reader in molecular genetics and
head of the Gene Expression and Terapy Group,
Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics,
King’s College London School of Medicine, UK.
Mohamed Ezz El-Din Mostafa Habib
Mohamed Ezz El-Din Mostafa Habib is professor
and former director, Institute of Biology,
UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil, and provost for
extension and community afairs, UNICAMP.
He is an internationally recognized expert on
applied ecology, entomology, agricultural pests,
environmental education, sustainability, biological
control, and agroecology.
C. Vyvyan Howard
C. Vyvyan Howard is professor of bioimaging and
leader of the Nano Systems Research Group at
the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland. He is a
medically qualifed toxicopathologist. He has held
the Presidencies of the Royal Microscopical Society
and the International Society for Stereology and
was editor of the Journal of Microscopy from
1985-91. In recent years his research has centred
on the toxicological properties of nanoparticles.
Richard C. Jennings
Richard Jennings is afliated research scholar
in the Department of History and Philosophy of
Science at the University of Cambridge, UK. His
speciality is the responsible conduct of research
and the ethical uses of science and technology.
He is a member of BCS, the Chartered Institute
for IT, for which he co-developed a framework for
assessing ethical issues in new technologies.
Carlo Leifert
Carlo Leifert is professor of ecological agriculture
at the School of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Development (AFRD), Newcastle University, UK;
and director of the Stockbridge Technology Centre
Ltd (STC), UK, a non-proft company providing
R&D support for the UK horticultural industry.
Rubens Onofre Nodari
Rubens Onofre Nodari is professor, Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Brazil; former
manager of plant genetic resources, ministry
of environment, Brazil; and a Fellow of the
National Council of Scientifc and Technological
Development (CNPq) of the ministry of science
and technology, Brazil.
Claire Robinson
Claire Robinson is a researcher, writer and editor
with Earth Open Source. She works for NGOs
that advocate for public health and environmental
sustainability.
John Fagan
John Fagan founded one of the frst genetically
modifed organism testing and certifcation
companies. He co-founded Earth Open Source,
which uses open source collaboration to advance
sustainable food production. Earlier, he conducted
cancer research at the US National Institutes
of Health. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and
molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.
Endorsers
Bruce Blumberg
Bruce Blumberg is professor of developmental
and cell biology and professor of pharmaceutical
sciences at the University of California, Irvine,
USA. His speciality is the study of gene regulation
and intercellular signalling during embryonic
development.
Martin T. Donohoe
Martin Donohoe is adjunct associate professor,
School of Community Health, Portland State
University and senior physician, internal medicine,
Kaiser Sunnyside Medical Center, Clackamas, Oregon,
USA. He is chief science advisor for the Campaign
for Safe Food and a member of the board of advisors,
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 4
Contents
Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Roundup link with birth defects – study .................................................................................................... 7
1.1. Why should Europeans worry? ....................................................................................................... 7
2. EU regulators respond to birth defects study............................................................................................. 8
2.1. Glyphosate approval could be reconsidered – Dalli ...................................................................... 8
2.2. No reason for concern – Dalli ......................................................................................................... 8
2.3. EU Commission fouts EU law ........................................................................................................ 8
2.4. Commission delays glyphosate review – until 2015 ...................................................................... 9
2.5. Commission too busy to review glyphosate ................................................................................... 9
2.6. Why the delay matters .................................................................................................................... 9
2.7. Te real delay – until 2030? ..........................................................................................................10
2.8. What’s keeping the Commission so busy ....................................................................................10
3. EU regulators “disappear” birth defects ...................................................................................................10
3.1. Industry’s own studies show that glyphosate causes malformations .......................................11
3.2. Glyphosate’s “pattern” of teratogenicity dimissed by EU expert panel .....................................15
3.3. Industry and regulators failed to disclose glyphosate’s teratogenicity ......................................16
3.4. Germany set misleading “safe” level for glyphosate ...................................................................17
3.5. What the ADI should be – according to independent studies.....................................................18
3.6. Does current risk assessment protect the public? .......................................................................19
4. Te problem of industry bias in testing ....................................................................................................20
4.1. Good Laboratory Practice: A shield for industry? .......................................................................21
4.2. EFSA undermines democratic decision to end tyranny of GLP ..................................................22
4.3. Case study in the misuse of GLP: bisphenol A .............................................................................23
5. Evidence of teratogenicity in independent studies ..................................................................................24
5.1. How Carrasco’s fndings built on previous studies ......................................................................25
5.2. Epidemiological evidence on glyphosate and birth defects ........................................................25
6. Exposure routes an escape for industry and regulators .....................................................................26
7. Te question of doses .................................................................................................................................28
7.1. Did Carrasco use inappropriately high doses? .............................................................................28
8. Te choice of experimental animals ..........................................................................................................31
9. South America’s responsibility? ................................................................................................................31
10. Science divided .........................................................................................................................................33
11. Another worrying study on Roundup dismissed ...................................................................................33
12. What’s wrong with the current approval of glyphosate? ......................................................................33
12.1 Open peer reviewed scientifc literature is denied .....................................................................34
12.2. Outdated and badly informed claims go unchallenged .............................................................37
12.3. Industry tests have conficts of interest ....................................................................................39
12.4. Industry tests are old and use outdated protocols ....................................................................39
12.5. Te approvals system is not transparent ...................................................................................39
12.6. Te complete formulations as they are sold were not tested ....................................................39
13. Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................................40
13.1. Recommendations on Roundup and glyphosate ......................................................................40
13.2. Recommendations on pesticides regulation ..............................................................................40
13.3. Recommendations to the public .................................................................................................41
References ......................................................................................................................................................42
Appendix: Potential for reform in pesticide use ...........................................................................................52
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 5
Summary
Concerns about the best-selling herbicide
Roundup® are running at an all-time high.
Scientifc research published in 2010 showed that
Roundup and the chemical on which it is based,
glyphosate, cause birth defects in frog and chicken
embryos at dilutions much lower than those
used in agricultural and garden spraying. Te EU
Commission dismissed these fndings, based on
a rebuttal provided by the German Federal Ofce
for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL.
BVL cited unpublished industry studies to back its
claim that glyphosate was safe.
Te Commission has previously ignored
or dismissed many other fndings from the
independent scientifc literature showing that
Roundup and glyphosate cause endocrine
disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and
developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer,
as well as birth defects. Many of these efects
are found at very low doses, comparable to levels
of pesticide residues found in food and the
environment.
Tis issue is of particular concern now that
Monsanto and other producers of genetically
modifed seed are trying to get their glyphosate-
tolerant crops approved for cultivation in Europe.
If the EU Commission gives its approval, this
will lead to a massive increase in the amount of
glyphosate sprayed in the felds of EU member
states, as has already happened in North and
South America. Consequently, people’s exposure
to glyphosate will increase.
All these concerns could be addressed by an
objective review of Roundup and glyphosate in
line with the more stringent new EU pesticide
regulation due to come into force in June 2011.
Just such a review was due to take place in
2012. However, shortly after the Commission
was notifed of the latest research showing that
glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects, it
quietly passed a directive delaying the review of
glyphosate and 38 other dangerous pesticides until
2015. Tis delay is being challenged in a lawsuit
brought against the Commission by Pesticides
Action Network Europe and Greenpeace.
Delaying the review of glyphosate until 2015 is
serious enough. But in reality, the Commission’s
slowness in preparing the new data requirements
for the incoming regulation mean that glyphosate
may well not be re-assessed in the light of up-to-
date science until 2030. Te benefciary will be the
pesticide industry; the victim will be public health.
Te need for a review of glyphosate
is particularly urgent in the light of the
shortcomings of the existing review of the
pesticide, on which its current approval rests. In
this report, we examine the industry studies and
regulatory documents that led to this approval.
We show that industry and regulators knew as
long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate
causes malformations – but that this information
was not made public. We demonstrate how EU
regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence
of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own
studies (the same studies that BVL claimed show
the safety of glyphosate) to a conclusion that
minimized these fndings in the EU Commission’s
fnal review report.
Te German government and its agencies
played a central role in this process. As the
“rapporteur” member state for glyphosate,
Germany was responsible for liaising between
industry and the EU Commission and reporting
the fndings of industry studies. We show how
Germany played down fndings of serious harm
in industry studies on glyphosate. It irresponsibly
proposed a high “safe” exposure level for the
public that ignored important data on glyphosate’s
teratogenic efects. Tis level was accepted by the
Commission and is now in force.
Taken together, the industry studies and
regulatory documents on which the current
approval of glyphosate rests reveal that:
● Industry (including Monsanto) has known
since the 1980s that glyphosate causes
malformations in experimental animals at high
doses
● Industry has known since 1993 that these
efects could also occur at lower and mid doses
● Te German government has known
since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes
malformations
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 6
● Te EU Commission’s expert scientifc review
panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes
malformations
● Te EU Commission has known since 2002 that
glyphosate causes malformations. Tis was
the year its DG SANCO division published its
fnal review report, laying out the basis for the
current approval of glyphosate.
Te public, in contrast, has been kept in the dark
by industry and regulators about the ability of
glyphosate and Roundup to cause malformations.
In addition, the work of independent scientists
who have drawn attention to the herbicide’s
teratogenic efects has been ignored, denigrated,
or dismissed. Tese actions on the part of industry
and regulators have endangered public health.
Tey have also contributed to the growing division
between independent and industry science, which
in turn erodes public trust in the regulatory
process.
Tis report provides a comprehensive review of
the peer-reviewed scientifc literature, documenting
the serious health hazards posed by glyphosate and
Roundup herbicide formulations. On the basis of
this evidence, we call on the Commission to cancel
its delay in reviewing glyphosate and to arrange an
objective review of the pesticide. Te review must
take into account the full range of independent
scientifc literature, as demanded by the new
pesticides regulation, and should be started as soon
as the new data requirements are in place this year.
In the meantime, the Commission should use its
powers to withdraw glyphosate and Roundup from
the market.
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 7
1. Roundup link with birth defects – study
Research published in August 2010 showed
that the best-selling herbicide Roundup
1
causes
malformations in frog and chicken embryos at
doses much lower than those used in agricultural
spraying.
2
Te malformations found were mostly
of the craniofacial and neural crest type, which
afect the skull, face, midline, and developing brain
and spinal cord.
Te research team was led by Professor Andrés
Carrasco, lead researcher of the Argentine
government research body CONICET. Carrasco
was prompted to carry out the study by reports of
high rates of birth defects in areas of Argentina
dedicated to growing genetically modifed
Roundup Ready (GM RR) soy.
3
Te birth defects
seen in humans were of a similar type to those
found in Carrasco’s study.
GM RR soy is designed to be sprayed with
Roundup herbicide, based on the chemical
glyphosate. Te Roundup Ready gene allows the
crop to be sprayed with Roundup herbicide, which
kills weeds but allows the crop to survive.
It is also important to note that GM RR soy
and other crops are tolerant rather than resistant
to Roundup and glyphosate: that is, they absorb
the herbicide and survive. As a result, GM RR
crops are a reservoir of potentially high levels of
glyphosate, which will then be ingested by animals
or people who eat the crops.
The spread of GM RR varieties has led
to massive increases in the amount of
glyphosate sprayed in soy-producing areas.
4 5
6
In Brazil, nearly 90,000 tons of glyphosate-
based pesticides in 71 different commercial
formulations were sold in 2009.
7
In Argentina,
over half the cultivated land is given over to
GM soy, which is sprayed with 200 million litres
of glyphosate herbicide each year.
8
Spraying is
often carried out from the air, causing major
problems of drift.
Carrasco said, “From the ecotoxicological
point of view, what is happening in Argentina is
a massive experiment.”
9
It is a cautionary tale of
what could happen in any country that adopts
glyphosate-tolerant GM crops on a large scale.
1.1. Why should Europeans worry?
The maximum residue limit (MRL) allowed for
glyphosate in food and feed products in the
EU is 20 mg/kg. Soybeans have been found
to contain glyphosate residues at levels up to
17mg/kg.
10
Carrasco found malformations in
frog and chicken embryos injected with 2.03
mg/kg glyphosate – ten times lower than the
MRL. While an injected dose is not the same as
eating food containing glyphosate residues, no
attempt has been made to properly investigate
how much glyphosate people and animals are
ingesting.
11
Each year, the EU imports around 35 million
tons of soy and derivatives,
12
most of which is
used for animal feed and biofuels. A loophole
in the EU’s GM labelling laws allows meat,
dairy and eggs produced with GM animal feed
to be sold without a GM label. So the GM soy,
and residues of the glyphosate with which
it is treated, go into the food chain through
animal feed and remain hidden from European
consumers.
Europeans are also exposed to Roundup in
the form of sprays. In Europe, marketing claims
that Roundup is safe and readily biodegradable
have helped expand its use beyond farmers’
fields. Municipal authorities use it for weed
control on roadsides and in school grounds,
parks, and other public areas. Home gardeners
can easily buy it in supermarkets and garden
centres.
Given the widespread use of the herbicide
and industry plans to introduce glyphosate-
tolerant GM crops into Europe, the safety
questions over Roundup must be answered
objectively and in accordance with the most
up-to-date scientific knowledge. However, an
opposite process appears to be in train: industry
and regulators are minimising concerns in what
seems to be an effort to keep the pesticide on
the market.
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 8
2. EU regulators respond to birth defects study
In September 2010, Carrasco’s research was sent
to John Dalli, the EU Commissioner for Health
and Consumer Policy. Te following month,
Greek Green MEP Michail Tremopoulos asked
Dalli in a parliamentary question what action
the Commission planned to take on Monsanto’s
application for cultivation in the EU of its NK603
glyphosate-tolerant GM maize.
Te European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
has already given the go-ahead to NK603. If the
Commission gives its approval, NK603 will be
the frst GM herbicide-tolerant plant to be grown
commercially in the EU
13
– and the frst to enable
the intensive glyphosate spraying that has come
under fre in Argentina.
14
2.1. Glyphosate approval could be
reconsidered – Dalli
Dalli’s answer to Tremopoulos did not exactly
promise action, but it did suggest a willingness
to re-assess glyphosate on the basis of the new
evidence. Dalli said that the existing approval
of glyphosate could be reconsidered and,
“depending on the seriousness and urgency of
the matter,” it could be restricted or even banned.
Dalli said he would also consider reviewing the
current maximum residue levels (MRLs) allowed
in soy.
15
Dalli said a programme was under discussion
for re-examining those pesticides for which
the EU approval was soon to expire – “and this
programme includes glyphosate”.
16
Pesticides
approved for use in the EU are reviewed every ten
years. Glyphosate was last reviewed in 2002,
17

so the next review would normally be expected
in 2012.
18
But Dalli’s response to Tremopoulos
suggested that in light of the new evidence, more
immediate action could be taken.
19
Dalli asked the German government to examine
Carrasco’s study and report back on whether it
refected real-life exposure levels. Germany was
given this task because it is the “rapporteur”
member state for glyphosate, responsible for
liaising between the industry applicants for the
pesticide’s approval, member states, and the EU
Commission.
2.2. No reason for concern – Dalli
MEP Tremopoulos followed up with another
parliamentary question to Dalli in December,
20

asking if the EU would carry out a new risk
assessment of glyphosate, based on the latest
scientifc evidence. But Dalli had heard back from
the German government and was reassured that
there was no need. Dalli reported the German
authorities’ verdict on Carrasco’s study:
● Te study had been performed under “highly
artifcial” conditions that did not refect the
real-life use of glyphosate in agriculture or its
efects on mammals
● Tere is a “comprehensive and reliable
toxicological database for glyphosate” and the
fndings of these studies do not throw into
doubt its existing approval
● Tere was no need to ban or restrict the use of
the substance.
21
As discussed below, the basis for these conclusions
by the German regulators is highly questionable.
2.3. EU Commission fouts EU law
Te glyphosate question has arisen at a crucial
moment in EU pesticides regulation. Te old
Directive 91/414
22
is in the process of being
replaced by the new Regulation 1107/2009,
23
which comes into force in June 2011. Te new law
contains stringent requirements to protect public
health and the environment. It has the potential
to set the gold standard for pesticide safety
assessments internationally, bringing the system
more into line with public health interests.
Te new pesticide regulation 1107/2009
makes clear that the European Parliament
and Council will no longer rely for pesticides
approvals on industry-generated “grey
literature”
24
and studies that are hidden from the
public under commercial confdentiality rules.
It states that the “scientifc peer-reviewed open
literature” must be taken into account from now
on in assessing pesticides.
25
Te regulation also solves the problem of
old and outdated studies dominating pesticides
approvals dossiers. It states that studies from
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 9
the open literature published within the last ten
years before submission of the dossier must be
included in the assessment.
26
But the EU Commission appears to be doing ev-
erything in its power to fout the intent of the new
regulation. It is putting massive energy and re-
sources into prolonging the approval of pesticides
under the old, less stringent rule, instead of what
it should be doing – working on the evaluation of
pesticides under the new Regulation 1107/2009. If
the Commission gets its way, glyphosate and other
dangerous pesticides will avoid the scrutiny of the
new regulation for many years.
2.4. Commission delays glyphosate
review – until 2015
As it turned out, the Commission did not bring
the glyphosate review forward, or even stick to the
expected date of 2012. In an astonishing move, it
delayed the review of glyphosate until 2015.
27
It
then rushed through a new directive, setting the
delay into law, on November 10, 2010 – two days
before Dalli told Tremopoulos that action might be
taken soon on glyphosate.
28
It is unclear whether
Dalli misled Tremopoulos, or was unaware of the
new directive.
Te entire decision-making process on the
delay was done behind closed doors with a limited
group of national representatives (mainly from
the agricultural ministries of member states)
and set into law without notifying stakeholders.
Tis process is called “comitology” and is much
criticized for being non-transparent, confusing
(even to legal experts) and undemocratic.
29
2.5. Commission too busy to review
glyphosate
The German government body dealing with
the glyphosate review is BVL, the Federal
Office for Consumer Protection and Food
Safety. In December 2010, Friends of the
Earth Germany (BUND) asked BVL the reason
for the delay in the review. BVL replied that
the EU Commission and other authorities
(including food safety watchdog, the European
Food Safety Authority, EFSA) had too heavy a
workload and had not finalized the rules for
renewing the approval of certain pesticides,
including glyphosate.
BVL added that the delay is not confned to
glyphosate but also applies to other pesticides.
30
In
fact, the list of 39 pesticides for which the review
will be delayed includes the highly toxic 2,4-D and
diquat.
31
If BVL meant this statement to reassure, it
was mistaken. Te fact that not just one but 39
pesticides will get a free regulatory ride for an
extra three years is a political scandal. If BVL’s
explanation is taken at face value, public health
is being put at risk because of bureaucratic
inefciency. Te benefciary is the pesticide
industry.
Te Commission’s delay in reviewing the
39 pesticides is being challenged in a lawsuit
brought by Pesticides Action Network Europe and
Greenpeace.
32
2.6. Why the delay matters
Te delay will have far-reaching consequences
because it means glyphosate will be reviewed
under the data requirements of the old pesticide
Directive 91/414 rather than the new Regulation
1107/2009. Te old directive is much less efective
than the new regulation because it has lax and
outdated data requirements. Data requirements
instruct industry which efects to study and which
testing methods to use.
Te data requirements of the old Directive
91/414 are based on outdated protocols designed
decades ago.
33
Tey ignore new scientifc insights
and developments. Efects likely to be missed
include endocrine disruption, efects on develop-
ment, efects of added ingredients (adjuvants), ef-
fects of combinations of chemicals, and efects on
bees. Also likely to be missed are efects found in
independent peer reviewed scientifc literature, as
the old directive does not explicitly say that such
studies must be included in industry’s dossier. In
short, the most rigorous and advanced science is
ignored under the data requirements of the old
Directive 91/414.
According to Danish MEP Dan Jørgensen, the
Commission has been working on the new data
requirements for Regulation 1107/2009 since
2002 and has still not completed them.
34
Tey
are scheduled for publication on June 14, 2011.
35

Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 10
Once they are published, industry needs at least
two years to do the new tests on glyphosate
and to liaise with the rapporteur, Germany, and
the Commission over its dossier. Industry has
to deliver its new dossier for glyphosate by 31
May 2012,
36
and the EU Commission will give its
delayed decision in 2015.
37
Because the Commission has taken so long to
prepare the new data requirements, industry will
not have enough time to do the tests on glyphosate
under the new data requirements. So glyphosate
and the 38 other pesticides will be reviewed in 2015
under the old, lax data requirements. Commissioner
Dalli confrmed this in a reply to a Parliamentary
question from MEP Jørgensen.
38

Te Commission has the option to tighten
the 2015 glyphosate review by forcing industry
to include studies from the open peer-reviewed
scientifc literature in its dossier. Te new
regulation, which stipulates that such literature
should be considered, will be in place. Also, EFSA
has already published its Guidance on the use of
science for the regulation,
39
giving industry time
to collect the independent studies before its 2012
dossier submission deadline. However, it is not yet
clear whether the Commission has the political will
to make industry comply with this aspect of the
new regulation.
2.7. The real delay – until 2030?
Te EU Commission’s delay in reviewing
glyphosate and the 38 other pesticides until
2015 is serious enough. But the situation is far
worse than it appears. Because glyphosate will go
through its 2015 review on the basis of old, lax
data requirements, it will likely be approved. Te
approval period is 15 years. As a result, glyphosate
will not in efect face a review under the new,
more stringent data requirements until 2030.
40

By then, public policy on glyphosate will be based
on evidence generated using research protocols
that are decades out of date.
41
It will exclude all
evidence from independent studies unless the
Commission insists that this be included.
2.8. What’s keeping the Commission
so busy
A Commission source who spoke on condition
of anonymity confrmed that the real cause
of the delay in the review of glyphosate and
the 38 other pesticides is a process called
Resubmission.
42
Tis was instituted in 2008 after
the Commission rejected a number of industry
pesticide applications on the grounds that the
dossiers were incomplete. Industry disagreed
and threatened the Commission with lawsuits.
Te Commission reached a compromise with
industry, ofering it a second chance to deliver
more complete dossiers while allowing the
pesticides to stay on the market for an additional
3–4 years. Resubmission is a fast-track procedure
with a limited dossier.
According to Pesticides Action Network
Europe, the loophole “turned into a big hole” when
industry submitted applications for more than
80 substances, including some “dirty” pesticides
that had been regarded as having no chance of
approval.
43
PAN said that companies jumped on
the train of this fast-track procedure, hoping for a
mild evaluation or to put pressure on Commission
through member states if their farmers were
interested in getting a banned substance back.
Te Commission has been bogged down in
Resubmission applications ever since. Industry
has benefted because the Commission is directing
all its resources into prolonging the approval of
pesticides under the weak old rule – and ignoring
the demands of the new, more stringent regulation.
3. EU regulators “disappear” birth defects
Te regulators’ response to Carrasco’s study
suggests that they are in no hurry to take on
board the fndings of independent science. At
Commissioner Dalli’s request, the German Federal
Ofce for Consumer Protection and Food Safety,
BVL, produced a written response to the study.
44

Tis was not published but was only sent to the EU
Commission.
BVL’s statement is anonymous. Tough
common with such items of grey literature, this
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 11
operates against the public interest as no one
can be held accountable a decision that could
signifcantly afect public health. Tere is no way
of knowing whether the people who wrote it are
even qualifed scientists, let alone if they have
industry interests.
BVL’s conclusion can be summarised as: no
action is needed on glyphosate. It tries to isolate
Carrasco’s study, implying that it is the only one
to fnd problems. BVL cites Germany’s 1998 draft
assessment report (DAR) on glyphosate, which
it says showed “no evidence of teratogenicity”
(ability to cause malformations/birth defects).
45

Te DAR is a crucial document underlying
glyphosate’s current EU approval. It is Germany’s
summary and report on the dossier of studies
submitted by industry in support of glyphosate’s
approval. Based on this DAR, along with EU member
states’ comments and a peer review of the dossier
by the EU Commission’s ECCO scientifc panel, the
EU Commission’s health and consumer division DG
SANCO approved glyphosate for 10 years in 2002.
DG SANCO’s fnal review report on glyphosate
acknowledges developmental abnormalities found in
the industry studies but dismisses their importance
by saying that they are confned to “maternally toxic
doses” (see Section 3.1, below).
46

BVL’s response to Carrasco was followed by a
response from industry. Employees of Monsanto
and Dow, two major manufacturers of glyphosate
herbicides, published a letter in the same journal
that published Carrasco’s original study.
47
Te
Monsanto/Dow letter was published back-to-back
with Carrasco’s response.
48

Monsanto/Dow take the same line as BVL,
claiming:
Glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive
efects in adult animals or birth defects in ofspring
of these adults exposed to glyphosate, even at very
high doses.
49
But both BVL’s and Monsanto/Dow’s claims are
misleading, as we show below.
3.1. Industry’s own studies show that
glyphosate causes malformations
Germany’s DAR concludes from the industry
dossier of studies, “Glyphosate does not cause
teratogenicity”. But Germany immediately goes
on to qualify its conclusion, saying that higher
doses of glyphosate caused “reduced ossifcation
and a higher incidence of skeletal and/or visceral
[internal organ] anomalies” in rats and rabbit
foetuses.
50
In reality, at odds with Germany’s
reassuring conclusion, the details of the DAR
contain convincing evidence of glyphosate’s
teratogenicity.
Germany adds that in the industry studies,
glyphosate given at high doses reduced the
number of viable foetuses produced by rats and
rabbits.
51
Decreased numbers of viable foetuses
are often consistent with increased incidence of
malformations, as many mal-developed foetuses
are spontaneously aborted.
Te skeletal “anomalies” found in these early
industry studies are consistent with Carrasco’s
fndings. But Germany dismisses them on the
claimed grounds that the doses at which the
efects were found were so high as to be toxic to
the mothers (maternally toxic doses).
Germany here makes an assumption common
among regulatory authorities – that foetal
abnormalities found at maternally toxic doses
are irrelevant to human risk assessment. Te
reasoning is that poisoning of the mother with
any substance can afect the development of the
foetus and lead to birth defects and therefore
such malformations may not be a direct efect
of the chemical in question on the foetus. So
malformations in foetuses found at dose levels
that are considered toxic to the mother are
dismissed as irrelevant and the substance under
examination is not classed as a developmental
toxin or teratogen.
But this assumption is debated in the
independent scientifc literature. Paumgartten
(2010) says that in cases of maternal toxicity, it
is not possible to know whether an efect on the
embryo is only due to maternal poisoning or due
to a direct action of the chemical at doses that also
adversely afect the mother. In the latter case, the
chemical would be a developmental toxin.
52

Even industry is actively discussing the
relationship between maternal toxicity and
birth defects. It was the subject of a recent
workshop held by the industry-funded group, the
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 12
International Life Sciences Institute.
53
As yet there is no scientifc consensus around
the issue. Te confusion is made worse by the
poor design of standard industry chronic toxicity
tests, which use so few animals that unrealistically
high doses of the chemical have to be used in
an attempt to obtain statistical signifcance in
non-lethal efects.
54
In fact, the doses for chronic
two-year toxicity tests are derived from, and are
only slightly below, the acute poisoning dose. So
poisoning efects are common in such tests, which
often miss more subtle efects.
55
Tus, virtually all chronic tests commissioned
by industry have an escape clause: “Perhaps the
dose was so high it poisoned the animals.” Tis
escape clause is frequently used by the rapporteur
Germany in its DAR on glyphosate.
Germany’s dismissal of the malformations
found in industry studies on grounds of maternal
toxicity is thrown into doubt by the fndings of an
independent study. Dallegrave (2007) examined
the reproductive efects of Roundup on male and
female ofspring of Wistar rats treated with 50,
150 or 450 mg/kg of Roundup during pregnancy
and lactation. Te study found that these doses
of Roundup did not induce maternal toxicity but
did induce adverse reproductive efects on male
ofspring. Findings include a decrease in sperm
number and daily sperm production during
adulthood, an increase in the percentage of
abnormal sperms, a dose-related decrease in the
serum testosterone level at puberty, and signs
of sperm cell degeneration during both periods.
Te study showed that Roundup is a reproductive
toxin at non-maternally toxic doses.
56

Even if we confne the argument to evidence
generated by industry studies, Germany’s
argument that glyphosate’s teratogenicity is
confned to high, maternally toxic doses is untrue.
Te industry studies also found malformations at
lower doses. Tis is made clear by Germany’s own
summaries of the industry studies in the DAR and
by the comments of the UK’s Pesticides Safety
Directorate (PSD).
Our edited versions of Germany’s summaries of
industry studies are presented below, along with
the UK PSD’s comments and our own.
How are pesticides assessed for
risk in the EU?
Risk assessment of pesticides in the EU is a long and
complex process:
● Industry submits a dossier of studies in support
of its application for approval of a pesticide. The
studies should fulfl the data requirements of the
regulation in force.
● The rapporteur member state reviews the
industry dossier and compiles a draft assessment
report (DAR).
● The EU member states are invited to comment
on the industry dossier and DAR.
● A scientifc panel of the EU Commission –
formerly the ECCO Panel, now EFSA’s Panel on
Plant Protection Products and their Residues
(PPR Panel) – reviews the industry dossier and
DAR, and writes an Opinion.
● The EU Commission’s Health and Consumer
Protection Directorate General (DG SANCO)
compiles a review report, summarising the
evidence on the pesticide.
● A committee made up of representatives of DG
SANCO and the member states, known as the
Standing Committee on the Food Chain and
Animal Health (SCFCAH) – Phytopharmaceuticals,
meets to discuss the pesticide.
● DG SANCO makes a proposal at a meeting of
the SCFCAH to approve, reject, or conditionally
approve the pesticide for certain uses.
● If a large majority of SCFCAH members reject
DG SANCO’s proposal, DG SANCO can change
it or fnd a compromise.
● The SCFCAH votes on whether to accept DG
SANCO’s proposal.
● In the event that a qualifed majority vote is not
achieved, the proposal passes to the European
Council for a fnal decision.
The documents on which the current EU approval of
glyphosate is based, including Germany’s 1998 DAR
on glyphosate and comments of member states, are
not readily available to the public or seemingly even
to the EU Commission’s regulators, DG SANCO. DG
SANCO told the authors of this report that it was
unable to supply the DAR and referred the request
to the German government offce BVL, which only
supplied it after a delay of several weeks. Even then, BVL
withheld part of the DAR. In contrast, DG SANCO’s
2002 review report on glyphosate is publicly available.
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 13
Suresh (1993)
Submitter company: Feinchemie
57
Germany’s summary: Tis study on the
teratogenicity of glyphosate in rabbits found that
the total number of foetuses with major visceral
anomalies was high in all treatment groups,
including the low-dose level of 20 mg/kg, and was
signifcantly increased at the 500 mg/kg (highest
dose) level. Te percentage of foetuses with dilated
heart was signifcantly elevated at all dose levels.
Skeletal variations, anomalies and malformations
were found but there was no clear dose-response
pattern. Tere was a dose-related increase in
the occurrence of an extra 13
th
rib in all the
glyphosate-treated groups and in the highest dose
group this was statistically signifcant.
Te NOEL (no observable efect level, the
highest dose tested that did not produce an adverse
efect) for maternal toxicity was 20 mg/kg bw/d
[body weight]/day, based on the fact that possibly
treatment-related deaths occurred in the higher
dose groups. With regard to visceral malformations,
the study’s author concluded that the NOEL was
less than the lowest dose of 20 mg/kg bw/d.
58
UK’s comment: “Te increased incidences of
abnormalities … are of concern, particularly
the heart efects which are also reported in
other rabbit studies with glyphosate… Te
interpretation of this fnding must rely on
comparison with historical control data. If
the typical incidence [of malformations] is
approximately 5 fetuses per group then there is
no concern. However if this is a very rare fnding
in control animals and the concurrent controls
for this study are typical then there are concerns
regarding the potential fetotoxicity of this source
of glyphosate.”
59
Our comment: With regard to this study, even
industry is telling Germany that glyphosate is tox-
ic at 20 mg/kg bw/d, if not lower. Germany howev-
er explains away the fndings on the grounds that
the actual number of foetuses with dilated heart
was small, that there was no increase in foetuses
with heart dilation in the mid-dose over the low-
dose group, that almost no other soft organ mal-
formations occurred, and that the consequences of
this heart malformation are “equivocal”. Together,
those arguments lead them to conclude that the
low dose of 20 mg/kg bw/d and even the mid dose
of 100 mg/kg bw/d were NOELs.
An objective evaluation of this study would
conclude that the low dose of 20 mg/kg bw/d is
not the NOEL, or, as it is usually called today, the
NOAEL (no observed adverse efect level). In this
study, 20 mg/kg is the LOAEL – the lowest level
at which an adverse efect was found. Statistically
signifcant teratogenic efects were found at
this dose. As no NOEL was found in this study,
Germany should have demanded that further tests
be done to establish the NOEL, with the highest
dose set at 20 mg/kg bw/d and lower doses added
to try to establish a true NOEL.
Germany’s comment that the number of
foetuses with abnormalities was small merely
identifes a shortcoming of industry studies.
Larger numbers of test subjects are always
preferable. If the number of animals used in the
study is small, any efect will only be seen in small
numbers of animals.
Germany’s dismissal of the heart malformations
on the grounds that no other types of soft organ
malformations were found is not consistent with
the current state of knowledge in developmental
biology. Many toxic agents target a specifc organ
(known as “organ specifc” efects) or have one
specifc efect. In light of this, Germany has no
basis for arguing that the heart malformations
are not important because malformations were
not observed in other tissues. Also, Germany’s
argument that the heart dilation malformation
has unknown consequences and can therefore be
dismissed is scientifcally and clinically indefensible.
Germany’s expectation of a proportional
dose-response pattern in skeletal malformations
is also not supported by current knowledge of
developmental biology. Tere is no evidence in the
scientifc literature demonstrating that toxicity
must always be proportional to dose, increasing
as the dose increases. Toxicologists now recognize
that dose-response relationships can be complex,
especially when the endocrine system is involved.
Toxic efects can be found at low doses but not
at higher doses, and diferent toxic efects can be
found at diferent doses.
60 61 62 63
Industry toxicologists ignore these scientifcally
established facts. Tey only test unrealistically
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 14
high doses and extrapolate efects to low doses,
wrongly assuming a linear dose-response
relationship. Tey also wrongly assume that
there is a threshold dose below which there is no
toxicity. In short, they fail to gather data from
almost every area of the dose-response graph.
Germany has wrongly dismissed the hard data
in this study, which clearly indicate the toxicity of
glyphosate.
Germany repeatedly tries to explain away
the fnding of malformations in industry
studies by referring to historical control data
instead of focusing on comparison of the
experimental and control groups within the
study under consideration. When a study shows
clear diferences between experimental and
control groups, instead of concluding that the
study demonstrates the toxicity of glyphosate,
Germany compares the experimental group to
control data from other sources. Such control
data will have wide variability, the range of which
will overlap with the values reported for the
glyphosate-treated groups in the study under
consideration. Based on this overlap, Germany
concludes that there is no evidence of toxicity,
since the experimental results are within the
range of normal variability. Tis conclusion is not
valid, because the variability within the control
data gathered by Germany is artifcially large,
due to the fact that the studies from which those
data are drawn have been done under a range of
conditions.
Germany’s practices might be overlooked
if the efects found were marginal and if other
studies with similar fndings did not exist. But
neither condition applies to these industry
studies on glyphosate, which consistently show
malformations. Signifcantly, the independent
studies cited in this report do not rely on
“historical control data” to explain away fndings.
It is clear from the UK’s PSD’s comment on
the teratogenicity studies that it had not seen the
historical control data and so was not prepared
to discount the possibility that glyphosate was
teratogenic and toxic to foetuses.
64
Brooker et al., 1991
Submitter companies: Monsanto/Cheminova
65
Germany’s summary: Tis study looked at the
efects of glyphosate on pregnancy in rabbits, at
doses of 50, 150, and 450 mg/kg bw/d. It found
a signifcant increase in embryonic deaths in all
the glyphosate-treated groups compared with
controls. However, a comparison with histori-
cal control data showed that the incidence in the
control group was untypically low. Also, a clear
dose-response relationship was not shown. On the
other hand, an increase in late embryonic deaths
at the top dose level (450 mg/kg bw/day) was also
found in another study on rabbits.
Tere was concern about the more frequent
occurrence of foetuses with heart malformations
in the high dose group, but the incidence was
in the range of historical background data.
However, anomalies of the heart have been
described in other rabbit teratogenicity studies
with glyphosate, too. Tus, a possible efect on
the occurrence of visceral anomalies remains
equivocal.
66
UK’s comment: “Te increased levels of
embryonic death/post-implantational loss at
all dose levels are of concern, as are the reports
of heart defects… a more robust argument
should be presented before these fndings can be
dismissed.”
67
Our comment: Again, Germany uses historical
control data and an inappropriate model for toxicity
dose-response to explain away malformations of
the heart in a glyphosate-exposed group. Again, by
taking this position, Germany appears to be acting
against the public interest by ignoring or dismissing
fndings of glyphosate-induced teratogenicity and
foetotoxicity.
Bhide and Patil (1989)
Submitter companies: Barclay/Luxan
68
Germany’s summary: Tis study examined
teratological efects of glyphosate in rabbits at
doses of 125, 250, and 500 mg/kg bw/d. At the
high dose, two females aborted. Tere was no
evidence of foetotoxic and teratogenic efects
up to and including the mid-dose group. But the
high-dose group had a decreased number of viable
foetuses per litter and the number of non-viable
implants (non-development and death of embryo)
increased. Te number of visceral and skeletal
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 15
malformations was increased in the high-dose
group.
69
Te study’s authors do not mention whether a
statistical analysis was performed.
UK’s comment: “Another study with equivocal
evidence of heart defects.”
70
Our comment: Te data shows that dose-
dependent increases in lung and kidney
malformations were found across all glyphosate-
exposed groups. Increased heart malformations
were found in all exposed groups. Increased
skeletal (rudimentary 14
th
rib) malformations
were found in the mid-dose and high-dose groups.
Germany incorrectly claims that the teratogenic
NOAEL is the mid dose of 250 mg/kg bw/d. In
reality, there are evident increases in most of the
defects, even at the lowest dose of 125 mg/kg bw/d.
Te authors of this study do not provide an analysis
of statistical signifcance and groups of only 15
animals were used, making statistical signifcance
difcult to establish. But it is more accurate to say
the mid dose, possibly even the low 125 mg/kg
dose, is the LOAEL. Testing the efects of lower,
realistic doses requires far larger animal groups if an
increase in toxicity compared with the unexposed
control group is to be reliably detected.
71 72
At the very least, this study should have been
repeated with a larger sample size and lower doses.
Efects should have been examined thoroughly by
allowing full gestation and pup development.
Anonym. (1981)
Submitter company: Alkaloida
73
Germany’s summary: Tis oral feeding study
examined teratological efects of glyphosate in rats
and rabbits. Vital details were either not recorded
or poorly described, so the study was only consid-
ered as supplementary information. No malforma-
tions were recorded, but there were more foetal
deaths at the two upper dose levels (50.7 and
255.3 mg/kg bw/d).
74
It is difcult to understand
why an increase in foetal deaths would occur at
doses far below those at which foetal efects were
found in the gavage [force-feeding via stomach
tube] studies. Tus it is doubtful whether this ef-
fect is related to glyphosate.
75
UK’s comment: “Tough this study is questioned
[by the rapporteur, Germany] for showing
evidence of fetotoxicity at lower doses than other
studies, the study by Brooker (see above) may also
indicate fetotoxicity at 50 mg/kg bw/d.”
76
Our comment: Germany here again appears
to show a bias towards considering low-dose
fndings as non-treatment-related and irrelevant
– seemingly because it cannot accept that oral
feeding may result in diferent exposures and
efects than gavage. But the UK’s PSD points out
that another study supports this study’s fndings.
Tasker, E.J. and Rodwell, D.E. (1980)
Submitter companies: Monsanto and Cheminova
77
Germany’s summary: Tis teratogenicity study
in rats found a higher number of foetuses with
malformations at the highest dose level (3500
mg/kg bw/d), but this was within the range of
historical control data and was not considered to
be due to glyphosate treatment. Specifcally, there
were more foetuses with unossifed sternebrae
(bones of the sternum/breastbone) in the high-
dose group. While this efect was considered to
be due to the glyphosate treatment, it is “rather a
developmental variation than a malformation.”
78
UK’s comment: Te UK PSD does not comment
on this study.
Our comments: Germany once again resorts to
historical control data in order to conclude that
there is lack of evidence of teratogenicity. Given
the fndings of malformations from glyphosate
treatment in several other studies, this is
unjustifable.
Germany’s decision to redefne unossifed
sternebrae as a “variation” rather than a
malformation is scientifcally unjustifable and at
odds with other authorities. Unossifed sternebrae
in the rat are clearly defned as a skeletal
deformity in Te Handbook of Skeletal Toxicology.
79

3.2. Glyphosate’s “pattern” of
teratogenicity dimissed by EU expert
panel
Te UK PSD’s overall conclusion supports the
teratogenicity of glyphosate: “Taken in isolation,
none of the fndings in these rabbit teratology
studies would be clearly of concern. However,
overall there is an indication of a pattern.”
80
Te PSD ended by asking Germany to make
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 16
available the historical control data. It is unclear
whether the PSD ever saw this data or, if it did,
how it responded. Certainly, the data has not
been placed in the public domain for scrutiny by
independent scientists.
Te teratogenicity question then passed to
the EU Commission’s ECCO scientifc review
panel. Te panel noted “the incidence of heart
malformations”, but dismissed them on the
grounds that they were “within the range of the
historical control data”.
81
It is unclear whether
the ECCO Panel saw the historical control data
or merely accepted Germany’s conclusion. No
details are given of the previous studies from
which the historical control data were derived or
how the fgures were analyzed. Te experimental
animal species, experimental design, identity
of the researchers and laboratories, and purity
of the substance tested, are unknown. Tere
are signifcant variations between diferent
formulations of glyphosate: glyphosate produced
in the 1970s will not be the same as formulations
produced in later decades. But none of these
variables can be checked because the historical
control data does not appear to be in the public
domain.
Te historical control data that enabled the
ECCO Panel to dismiss glyphosate’s teratogenicity
must be added to the large pile of grey literature
supporting pesticide approvals that cannot be
evaluated by the public or independent experts.
Te use of historical rather than concurrent
controls adds variables to an experiment that
aims to control variables, obscures the teratogenic
efects of glyphosate, and biases any conclusion.
Tis is why the use of historical control data
is controversial.
82 83
Te practice should not be
allowed in evaluating animal toxicological and
other studies for pesticide approvals.
Valid control groups for an experiment are
animals of the same strain and age, in the same
environment, which are studied at the same
time as the exposed (experimental) animals. In
addition, the manner in which the animals are
examined and evaluated, and the data recorded,
must be the same. “Historical control data” fail
to meet these criteria. It appears that they are
being used as a smokescreen to hide glyphosate’s
teratogenic efects.
Clearly, only after fndings emerged showing
glyphosate’s teratogenicity did Germany and the
ECCO Panel introduce the artifce of historical
control data as a way of calling into question
the scientifcally-proper controls. In this way,
the diferences between exposed and unexposed
animals were buried in the variability within the
historical control data.
If such practices were uncovered in an
independent scientifc study, they could be
considered scientifc fraud. In this case, we do not
even know who perpetrated this act, which has
placed public health at risk.
Taking all these industry studies together,
there is enough evidence to require regulators to
apply the precautionary principle and withdraw
glyphosate from the market.
3.3. Industry and regulators failed to
disclose glyphosate’s teratogenicity
Te evidence discussed above shows how EU
regulators reasoned their way from evidence of
glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own
studies to a dismissal of these efects in DG
SANCO’s 2002 fnal review report.
84
Taken together, the industry studies and
regulatory documents on which the current
approval of glyphosate rests reveal that:
● Industry (including Monsanto) has known
since the 1980s that glyphosate causes
malformations in experimental animals at high
doses
● Industry has known since 1993 that these
efects could also occur at low and mid doses
● Te German government has known that
glyphosate causes malformations since at
least 1998, the year it submitted its DAR on
glyphosate to the EU Commission
● Te EU Commission’s expert scientifc review
panel has known since 1999 that glyphosate
causes malformations
● Te EU Commission has known since 2002 that
glyphosate causes malformations. Tis was
the year its DG SANCO division published its
fnal review report, laying out the basis for the
current approval of glyphosate.
Te public, on the other hand, has been kept
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 17
in the dark by industry and regulators about
the ability of glyphosate and Roundup to
cause malformations. In addition, the work of
independent scientists who have drawn attention
to the herbicide’s teratogenic efects has been
ignored, dismissed, or denigrated.
3.4. Germany set misleading “safe”
level for glyphosate
Te central purpose of any pesticide risk
assessment is to establish the Acceptable Daily
Intake (ADI), a level of exposure that is deemed
safe for humans over a long period. Te ADI is
calculated from the industry tests in the dossier.
Te level that should be used to set the ADI is the
highest dose at which no adverse efect is observed
(NOAEL), which is also lower than the lowest dose
that is toxic (LOAEL). Tis level should be selected
from “the most appropriate study in the most
sensitive species”, as the glyphosate rapporteur
Germany notes.
85
Germany set the ADI for glyphosate at 0.3 mg/
kg bw/d.
86
Tis ADI was accepted by the European
Commission in its fnal review report.
87
However, we argue that this is incorrect.
Germany indulges in some creative manipulation
of data to arrive at this level. It begins by
excluding certain studies from the ADI process:
● Germany excludes mid-term studies on the
grounds that only long-term studies should
be used to set safe chronic exposure levels.
88
Tis enables it to avoid using the rabbit
teratogenicity studies, which were mid-term.
● Germany claims that the most sensitive species
for chronic exposure is the rat. Tis gives it
another reason to exclude the inconvenient
rabbit teratogenicity studies, which found
signifcant adverse efects at lower doses than
the rat studies.
Based on this biased selection of data,
Germany cites as its starting point for working
out the ADI a LOAEL of 60 mg/kg bw/d from
a two-year rat study by Suresh (1996), which
found signifcant toxicity at that level.
89
Tis is
said to be the lowest dose at which toxicity was
observed. Germany then identifes the highest
NOAEL below that level: 31 mg/kg bw/d, in a
study by Lankas (1981). It implies that this is the
fgure from which it calculates its ADI (though
also, confusingly, denies that it bases the ADI on
any single study).
90
Te ADI is derived by dividing
this fgure by 100, to allow a safety margin.
Applying this 100-fold safety factor, Germany
arrives at an ADI of 0.3 mg/kg bw/d.
However, we argue that Germany should have
begun the ADI process using the LOAEL of 20 mg/
kg from the 1993 Suresh rabbit teratogenicity
study, which is three times lower than Germany’s
chosen LOAEL of 60 mg/kg bw/d.
91 92

To sum up the diference between these two
studies:
● Te study Germany uses to set the ADI:
Suresh’s 1996 chronic toxicity study on rats
found statistically signifcant toxicity at 60 mg/
kg bw/d (the LOAEL).
● Te study Germany ignores in setting the ADI:
Suresh’s 1993 teratogenicity study on rabbits
found statistically signifcant toxicity at 20 mg/
kg bw/d (the LOAEL).
Germany relegates the inconvenient 1993
Suresh study to setting the acceptable operator
(applicators’) exposure level (AOEL). It argues
that it is a mid-term rather than long-term
experiment and therefore more suitable to setting
an applicators’ exposure level.
93
We believe that Germany’s reasoning would
not stand up to independent scientifc scrutiny.
Germany’s failure to take into consideration the
worrying rabbit teratogenicity studies means that
its ADI ignores the problem of the teratogenic
efects of glyphosate – as shown even in weak
industry studies.
In our view, the Suresh 1993 LOAEL of 20 mg/
kg bw/d should be the starting point for the ADI
and for the applicators’ AOEL. Te 1993 Suresh
study from which this LOAEL is derived found no
NOAEL (no observed adverse efect level). In other
words, even the lowest dose produced adverse
efects.
94 95
So Germany should have insisted on
further tests to establish the NOAEL, using 20
mg/kg as the highest dose.
If this LOAEL of 20 mg/kg were used, then,
following the same procedure as Germany, the
highest NOAEL below this dose from Germany’s
approved list of studies is 10 mg/kg.
96
Applying
the 100-fold safety factor, this would give a more
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 18
objectively accurate ADI of 0.1 mg/kg bw/d, one-
third of the ADI suggested by Germany.
Interestingly, one of the industry applicants,
Feinchemie, suggests a far lower ADI than
Germany or us: 0.05 mg/kg bw/d. Tis is fve times
lower than the ADI suggested by Germany and
accepted by the Commission. Feinchemie bases its
suggested ADI on its 2-year rat study, which found
a NOAEL of 5.5 mg/kg bw/d.
97
Feinchemie’s suggested ADI is consistent with the
NOAEL of the 1996 Suresh study, which Germany
used to derive the LOAEL but ignored to set the ADI.
Te NOAEL of that study was 6.3 mg/kg bw/d, which
would give an ADI of 0.06 mg/kg bw/d, close to
Feinchemie’s proposed ADI of 0.05 mg/kg bw/d.
It is ironic that industry asked for stricter – and
more scientifcally justifable – safety standards
than the rapporteur, Germany. In contrast
with Feinchemie’s proposed low ADI, however,
Monsanto asked for an ADI of 1.75 mg/kg bw/d,
the highest of all the industry-suggested ADIs.
98
3.5. What the ADI should be –
according to independent studies
If a manufacturer of glyphosate says the ADI
should be fve times lower than the one suggested
by Germany and accepted by the Commission,
what do independent studies say it should be?
Two high-quality mammalian toxicity studies
show that glyphosate’s LOAEL should be even
lower than that proposed by Feinchemie (which in
turn was lower than that proposed by Germany):
● A study on rats showed that a Roundup
formulation was a potent endocrine disruptor
and caused disturbances in reproductive
development when the exposure was performed
during the puberty period. Adverse efects,
including delayed puberty and reduced
testosterone production, were found at all dose
levels, including the LOAEL of 5 mg/kg. Te
dose-response relationship was clear.
99
One of
the critical failures of regulatory toxicity tests
is to ignore important developmental windows
such as puberty. Tis study helps to fll that
knowledge gap.
● A 75-day study on rats showed that Glyphosate-
Biocarb (a Brazilian formulation) caused
damage to liver cells in a dose-response
manner, including at the LOAEL of 4.87 mg/
kg. According to the authors, the fndings
suggest that the damage to liver cells was
“irreversible”.
100
Both studies use a species (rats) and an exposure
route (oral) approved by EU regulators and
industry.
No dose below these two LOAELs was tested
in these studies, so the true NOAEL is lower – by
how much, no one knows. But the NOAEL could
reasonably be assumed to be 2.5 mg/kg bw/d.
Applying the usual 100-fold safety margin results
in a scientifcally defensible ADI of 0.025 mg/
kg bw/d. Tis is over ten times lower than the
Germany’s ADI, which is currently in force. Te
MRL (safe level in food) should be correspondingly
revised downward.
Of course, all assumptions need to be tested,
and not even independent science has explored the
full picture of Roundup and glyphosate’s toxicity.
Studies should be carried out immediately to
determine the true NOAEL and ADI for glyphosate
and Roundup, using the most comprehensive, up-
to-date scientifc knowledge. Tese studies would
involve:
● testing for more efects
● using lower, more realistic doses that will allow
accurate determination of the NOAEL
● using larger numbers of animals to ensure
sufcient statistical power to reliably detect
efects from realistic doses
● dosing during vulnerable developmental
windows
● extending study time-frames to allow mid- and
long-term efects to show up, instead of killing
the test animals before disease has a chance to
develop. Industry test animals are killed at the
human equivalent of about 60 years old, so many
efects of the chemical tested are missed.
101
In addition, research should be done that
determines glyphosate levels in food and
feed imported into the EU. Finally, based on
independent (not industry) data from North
and South America, an assessment should be
carried out of the increase in glyphosate use,
and therefore exposure, that would be expected
to occur if glyphosate-tolerant GM crops were
allowed to be grown in the EU.
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 19
Tis science-based assessment of glyphosate
and Roundup will allow the EU to establish a
credible policy that protects EU citizens. Until that
assessment is complete, the EU should apply the
precautionary principle and withdraw glyphosate
herbicides from sale in the EU.
3.6. Does current risk assessment
protect the public?
Te current system of pesticide risk assessment in
the EU is not transparent or easy to understand.
Tose who make the efort to study it will see
that it is open to manipulation and abuse. In
risk assessment, it is the details that count. Te
conclusions that are drawn depend heavily on how
data is selected – what is included and what is left
out. Tis is clear from the above discussion of the
approach Germany used in justifying its incorrect
conclusion that glyphosate does not have teratogenic
or foetotoxic efects. Particularly revealing was
Germany’s exclusion of the rabbit teratogenicity
studies in setting the ADI for glyphosate.
Industry also has room for manoeuvre
in discussions of how toxins behave in the
human body. For example, industry uses broad
arguments to claim that toxins are broken down
in the liver, or do not cross the placental barrier
in pregnant women. Even cases of clear harm
can be minimized. An anonymous scientist critic
said, “Tere are many tricks that are used. If all
insects in a feld are killed for a full year, this is
not a problem, because they will come back next
year. A regulator told me that with the current
system of risk assessment you could get any
chemical approved, including DDT.”
Even the underlying assumption of risk
assessment, that there is a “safe” level
below which a toxic pesticide is not toxic, is
questionable. Many compounds accumulate in
the body. Some toxins, particularly endocrine
disrupting chemicals, are more potent at low
doses than higher doses. People and species vary
in their susceptibility to toxins and individuals at
diferent stages in development and maturation
and at diferent stages of biological cycles. Even
the latest independent science has only begun
to explore the true efects of chemicals on
vulnerable groups such as developing foetuses,
infants and children, the elderly, and immune-
compromised people.
In addition, the industry tests carried out
for risk assessments mostly look for a narrow
range of gross efects. Tese include tissue and
structural changes, such as malformations and
tumours, which tend to occur at the high doses
that industry tests use. But these tests often miss
functional changes (efects on how the body’s
organs and systems function), which tend to
be seen at lower doses and more closely refect
efects from real-life human exposures. Tese
functional changes are important because they
can lead to more severe and difcult-to-reverse
disease conditions. In other words, they perform
a signalling role in predicting serious health
problems. Independent scientifc literature,
which is not tied to OECD test designs, has been
more efective than industry science in fnding
these functional efects – but it has hitherto been
virtually ignored in pesticide risk assessments.
Other aspects that have not been adequately
examined in existing risk assessments are the
impact of the individual’s existing body burden
of toxins and synergistic efects that are not seen
when the compounds are tested in isolation.
For these reasons and more, some scientists
and policy-makers advocate reforming the
risk assessment of pesticides – for example, by
increasing the use of hazard analysis. Hazard
analysis stipulates that if a pesticide has certain
hazardous qualities, it should automatically
be rejected (“hazard cut-of”). Tis difers
from the current risk assessment approach,
which assumes that even when a hazard exists,
the risk can be managed. Te new pesticide
regulation 1107/2009 contains some “hazard
cut-of” criteria. For example, a pesticide cannot
be approved if it is carcinogenic, mutagenic,
a reproductive toxin, persistent in the
environment, bioaccumulative, or an endocrine
disruptor (apart from specifc uses, such as in
closed systems).
Tese are positive developments. But industry,
together with the German Federal Institute for
Risk Assessment (BfR), which is involved in the
registration of pesticides in Germany, is lobbying
to prevent the new system of hazard analysis and
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 20
cut-of criteria gaining a foothold in Europe and to
keep the existing system of risk assessment.
102 103
For the sake of public health, it is vital that they
do not succeed.
4. The problem of industry bias in testing
Regulatory approvals of pesticides are based
almost exclusively on industry’s own studies. Te
conficts of interest inherent in this system were
pointed out by Andrés Carrasco in his original
research study. Te German government agency
BVL replied to this criticism by defending the
reliability of industry studies. BVL says industry
studies on other substances have sometimes
found developmental efects and “it is not likely
that developmental efects would have not been
reported for glyphosate but for other substances”.
BVL adds that many diferent companies provided
their own toxicological data from tests they had
commissioned from diferent laboratories, and all
found “absence of teratogenicity”.
It is interesting that the BVL makes this bold
and categorical statement, despite the fact that
industry studies in the dossier that the BVL
reviewed did fnd evidence of teratogenicity.
Even if the industry tests had shown no
malformations, this would not be proof of
glyphosate’s safety. Every time industry studies
are compared with those from the independent
scientifc literature, the same verdict is reached:
industry tests are biased towards conclusions
of safety. Te best known example is tobacco
industry studies, which successfully delayed
regulation for decades by manufacturing doubt
and controversy about the efects of smoking
and passive smoking.
104
More recently, studies
sponsored by the pharmaceutical and mobile
phone industry have been shown to be more
likely to portray their products in a favourable
light than non-industry-funded studies.
105 106
107
A review of studies on genetically modifed
crops and foods showed that the existence of
either fnancial or professional confict of interest
was associated with study outcomes that cast
products in a favorable light.
108
Fewer comparisons of industry vs. independent
studies have been performed for chemicals
(including pesticides), but in four such reviews the
same relationship is found: industry sponsorship
is more likely to fnd favorable results, while the
independent literature fnds both safety and
risk.
109 110 111 112
Te Monsanto/Dow employees follow BVL
in defending industry studies. In their response
to Carrasco, they write: “Multiple high quality
toxicological studies and expert review panels
consistently agree glyphosate is not a teratogen
or reproductive toxicant.” Tey say the industry-
funded studies that Carrasco calls untrustworthy
“have been exhaustively reviewed by multiple
government scientifc regulators, often comprised
of academic expert scientists and all of which
have strongly supported the conclusions put forth
in those studies.”
113
Monsanto/Dow names the
“Regulatory authorities and independent experts
who have documented this position” as WHO/
FAO, US EPA, the European Commission, and Wil-
liams (2000).
But Monsanto/Dow’s cited authorities for its
position do not stand up to scrutiny:
● Te European Commission’s 2002 review of
glyphosate claims that developmental efects
are confned to “maternally toxic doses”. But
this claim is examined and discredited above.
● Te WHO report on glyphosate (1994)
114

mainly cites industry studies. For example,
180 studies were generated by Monsanto, of
which over 150 were not published or subjected
to peer review. Other unpublished technical
reports provided as references in the same
document include 17 reports from Agrichem,
fve from Luxan BV, and fve from Rhone
Poulenc – all producers and/or marketers of
pesticides.
115
● Williams co-authored his paper on glyphosate’s
safety with Ian C. Munro.
116
Munro is executive
vice president of the chemical industry
consulting frm Cantox,
117
which states that its
mission is “protect client interests while helping
our clients achieve milestones and bring
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 21
products to market”.
118
Te Williams paper
was published in the controversial chemical
industry-sponsored journal Regulatory
Toxicology and Pharmacology (RTP). RTP was
one of several industry-linked organizations
that were investigated by a US Congressional
Committee in 2008 over their role in the FDA’s
decision allowing the toxic chemical bisphenol
A in infant formula and other foods.
119 120 121
All this would matter less if Williams had cited
credible sources in his claims for glyphosate’s
reproductive and developmental safety. But
he cites unpublished industry studies, such as
Schroeder (1981), Reyna (1990), and Tasker
(1980). As these studies are from the industry
dossier submitted for glyphosate’s approval,
it is strange that Williams fails to mention
the other studies from the same dossier that
we examine above – Suresh (1993), Brooker
(1991), and Bhide and Patil (1989) – which
found that glyphosate was teratogenic.
In sum, Monsanto/Dow relies for its claims of
glyphosate’s safety on carefully selected industry
sources and cooperative regulators who only
consider industry studies.
4.1. Good Laboratory Practice: A
shield for industry?
In its response to Carrasco, Monsanto/Dow
praises the “high quality” industry tests that
it claims show the safety of glyphosate on the
grounds that they were conducted under Good
Laboratory Practice (GLP) rules.
GLP specifes the organisational process and
the conditions under which industry studies for
the regulatory purposes are planned, performed,
monitored, recorded and reported. GLP is a
management system. It is not a hallmark – much
less a guarantee – of “good science”.
GLP was initiated by the US Food and Drug
Administration in 1978 in an attempt to end
the serious problem of fraud in industry testing
of pesticides, chemicals, and pharmaceutical
drugs for regulatory assessment.
122
In 1983,
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established similar guidelines for pesticide
toxicology studies and in 1989, extended
them to cover studies submitted for pesticide
approvals.
123
Te move to GLP standards was prompted by
a high-profle case of fraud involving a company
called Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT),
which brought into question 15% of the pesticides
approved for use in the US.
124 125
However, the
implementation of GLP failed to prevent a second
major case of fraud, this time at Craven Labs,
which was discovered in the 1990s.
126

Interestingly, both the IBT and Craven Labs
fraud cases involved toxicological and residue
tests of Roundup for regulatory purposes by
laboratories under contract to Monsanto.
Monsanto says it later repeated the tests under
GLP rules,
127
though this is hardly reassuring
given that the Craven Labs fraud occurred after
GLP rules were in place.
128
Clearly, GLP neither
prevents fraud, nor assures high quality science.
Te GLP guidelines are set by the OECD
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development), a body dedicated not to public
health but to promoting international trade
and economic development. OECD guidelines
prescribe the choice of experimental animal,
number of animals, exposure times, and doses.
129
Te aim was to establish a set of standardized
tests that would be acceptable in all WTO member
countries (WTO having come to an agreement
with OECD). Tis facilitates international trade
because all countries involved agree to the same
testing requirements.
130 131

Tough the aims of GLP were laudable, they
have been used to create a regulatory system that
excludes open peer reviewed scientifc literature.
One critic called GLP a “shield” that industry uses
to protect itself from inconvenient fndings in the
independent scientifc literature.
132
Regulatory
bodies across the world – including the EU
Commission’s DG SANCO and the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) – collude in this process
by designating industry’s GLP-compliant toxicity
studies as the highest quality data. Tey rely
almost exclusively on these industry-sponsored
studies for pesticide and chemical assessments,
rejecting studies from the open peer reviewed
scientifc literature because they are not conducted
under GLP rules.
133 134

Tus, Monsanto/Dow is able to dismiss
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 22
Carrasco’s research and other independent studies
showing harm from glyphosate/Roundup by
saying that the testing systems are “unvalidated”
and the studies “inappropriate and irrelevant for
human health risk assessment purposes”.
135
In
other words, they are not GLP.
Te tyranny of GLP over regulatory processes
has been heavily criticised in a paper co-authored
by 30 scientists. Te authors point out that
GLP “specifes nothing about the quality of the
research design, the skills of the technicians, the
sensitivity of the assays, or whether the methods
employed are current or out-of-date”.
136
Indeed,
the dismissive attitude of the EU Commission
– and of pesticide regulators worldwide – to
high-quality independent studies that fnd harm
from pesticides raises the question: why do
governments fund scientifc research if they ignore
its fndings in almost every risk assessment?
Another review criticizes GLP toxicity studies
for using outdated protocols, some of which
“have failed to modernise for nearly 100 years”:
“Very high doses are used (to assure statistical
signifcance, due to insensitivity of the assays),
but such near-poisoning levels may have little
to do with what happens to organisms that
are exposed to real world doses… and which
go untested.... Test animals are killed before
old age, masking most developing diseases. In
short, GLP tests use protocols that cannot fnd
toxicity.”
137
Government pesticide and chemical regulators
use data from industry OECD-compliant tests to
determine the claimed safe level or NOAEL (no
observed adverse efect level, the level at which the
efect being looked for is not found). But Tweedale
(2011) compared the NOAELs from industry and
independent tests on dozens of chemicals and
found that in every case, independent studies
detected important toxic efects at levels well
below those that industry studies claimed to be
safe. Yet regulators ignore the independent data
and take note only of the industry data because
they comply with OECD GLP criteria.
138
In addition, OECD tests set rigid and
scientifcally incorrect criteria regarding dose-
response in toxicological tests. Tese criteria
fail to take into account the fact that endocrine
disrupting and other efects are often stronger at
low dose than at high dose. Teir assumption that
there is a safe dose below which no signifcant
toxicity occurs has been challenged by fndings in
the independent scientifc literature.
139
OECD has still not come to terms with
low-dose efects or complex dose-response
relationships. One critical scientist who spoke on
condition of anonymity said, “It will probably take
OECD 10–15 years to come up with a complete
set of tests to take endocrine disruption into
account – which by then will be outdated again.
On endocrine disruption, only a few standardized
tests are available at the moment and there is no
overall strategy to decide which substances should
be subjected to which tests.”
140 141 142
Te EU Commission said in 2009 that it
expects its range of tests on endocrine disrupting
efects of pesticides to be ready in 2013.
143
Te
US Environmental Protection Agency is ahead of
the EU Commission and OECD and already has
a strategy and a list of substances for endocrine
disruption screening. Tese include glyphosate.
144
145 146
Even if we take Monsanto/Dow’s elevation of
GLP studies at face value, its argument does not
stand up, as many of the studies in the industry
dossier on glyphosate are not GLP. Tey are so
old that they pre-date the introduction of GLP.
Te industry studies cited by Williams to back his
claim that glyphosate is not a reproductive toxin
include non-GLP studies by Schroeder (1981) and
Tasker (1980).
147
4.2. EFSA undermines democratic
decision to end tyranny of GLP
Science has separated into two diverging pathways
– industry GLP science, which is often used to
claim safety for a risky product, and independent
science, which is usually not conducted according
to GLP rules, and which often shows harm. Te
new EU pesticide regulation has the potential to
end the tyranny of GLP by insisting on the use of
peer-reviewed independent scientifc studies in
pesticide assessments.
However, the new regulation obliges industry
to do its own scientifc literature search in
preparing a pesticide dossier. Te risk inherent
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 23
in giving industry control of the search could be
removed by forcing it to do a complete and non-
selective search. But the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA) has undermined the intent of
the new democratically established regulation by
issuing a Guidance on the use of peer-reviewed
science in pesticide assessment.
148
Te Guidance
actively encourages industry to select only those
studies it fnds convenient to include in the
dossier, through the following means.
Industry evaluates reliability of studies
Te Guidance advises industry how to evaluate the
reliability of, and thus how to select, studies for
possible inclusion in its dossier. Te frst source
that EFSA recommends industry to consult is a
paper by a BASF employee, Klimisch (1997),
149
published in the industry-sponsored journal
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
150

Klimisch gives a list of “categories of reliability” by
which to assess the suitability of a scientifc study
for inclusion in the regulatory dossier. His most
reliable category 1 (“reliable without restriction”),
consists of studies conducted according to GLP
rules. Klimisch relegates independent studies,
which do not follow GLP/OECD rules, to
categories 2 and 3, “reliable with restrictions” and
“not reliable”, respectively.
151
Industry can carry out selective searches
EFSA’s Guidance encourages industry to choose
search terms that would provide only a narrow-
focused search of the literature by, for example,
specifying the type of test design.
152
Tis works
against the public interest, as a search for
“mutagenicity AND GLP” would fnd industry-
generated studies but exclude independent
studies. If an independent study found
mutagenicity by a non-GLP test, it would not turn
up in the search.
Industry defnes what is a “relevant” study
EFSA’s Guidance encourages industry to select out
studies on the basis that they are not “relevant” to
human risk assessment. EFSA defnes “relevant”
species for toxicological studies as mammals,
preferably rats, mice, and dogs. Tis would exclude
studies such as Carrasco’s, which was on frogs
and chickens – even though the developmental
mechanisms in humans are similar.
153
EFSA defnes “relevant” exposure routes as
oral, dermal, or inhalation.
154
Tis would exclude
many independent studies, which use injection or
culture as the exposure route. Among the research
fndings excluded through this defnition would
be Carrasco’s study and much of the research on
glyphosate and Roundup conducted by Professor
Gilles-Eric Séralini’s team. However, the question
of relevance of diferent exposure routes is by no
means settled, and EFSA’s exclusion of certain
exposure routes as irrelevant is premature at best
(see Section 6, below).
Trough its Guidance, EFSA has given industry
licence to dismiss independent scientifc studies
– and regulators an excuse to continue to ignore
them in risk assessments of pesticides.
4.3. Case study in the misuse of GLP:
bisphenol A
Te problem of the tyranny of GLP over regulators
is exemplifed by the case of the chemical
bisphenol A (BPA), a plastics ingredient widely
used in food packaging.
Hundreds of peer reviewed, published – and
non-GLP – studies show signifcant efects
of BPA at low doses, with over 30 showing
signifcant efects below the predicted “safe”
dose. Te evidence that BPA poses a danger to
public health is strong. It has been found in
human blood and tissues, including in human
foetal blood, at levels higher than those causing
adverse efects in mice. An epidemiological study
shows that that BPA is related to ovarian disease
in women.
155
But industry studies on BPA have reached
diametrically opposite conclusions. While 94 of
104 (90%) government-funded published studies
on bisphenol A reported signifcant efects at
low doses, no industry-funded studies (0 of 11)
report signifcant efects at the same doses. A
2005 review of studies on BPA found that source
of funding is highly correlated with positive or
negative fndings.
156
A 2009 review blamed regulatory fxation on
GLP for the BPA débacle. Te authors criticized
the US Food and Drug Administration and
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 24
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
for deeming two industry-funded studies that
adhered to GLP to be superior to hundreds of
independent non-GLP studies funded by the US
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and similar
agencies in other countries.
157
Te authors stated:
It is of great concern that the US and EU regulatory
communities are willing to accept these industry-
funded, antiquated, and fawed studies as proof
of the safety of BPA while rejecting as invalid for
regulatory purposes the fndings from a very large
number of academic and government investigators
using 21st-century scientifc approaches. Te
basis for these decisions by US and EU regulatory
agencies should be thoroughly investigated.
158
Te authors pointed out that there is simply
no data from GLP studies on many of the toxic
efects observed in independent studies on
BPA, such as some adverse efects on the female
reproductive system. Tis is because those efects
have not yet made their way into the outdated
regulatory testing system. In other words, the
reason the efects are not found in GLP studies
is not because the chemical is safe, but because
those efects are not looked for. Te authors
added that there is a large literature on neurotoxic
efects and behavioral abnormalities caused by
low doses of BPA which are not capable of being
detected by current GLP studies conducted for
regulatory purposes because of their outdated
methodologies.
Te authors argued that the chemical industry-
sponsored GLP studies on which the agencies
based their decisions are incapable of detecting
low-dose endocrine-disrupting efects of BPA and
other hormonally active chemicals. Tey stated
that the FDA and EFSA “mistakenly assumed that
GLP yields valid and reliable scientifc fndings
(i.e., ‘good science’).”
159
Te authors stated that the main factors
determining the reliability of scientifc fndings
are independent replication and use of the most
sensitive and up-to-date tests – neither of which is
an expectation of GLP. Tey concluded:
We are not suggesting that GLP should be
abandoned as a requirement for industry-
funded studies. We object, however, to
regulatory agencies implying that GLP indicates
that industry-funded GLP research is somehow
superior to NIH-funded studies that are not
conducted using GLP.
160
Te EFSA continues to rely for its risk assessment
of BPA on the few industry studies adhering to
Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines that
found no adverse efects. Based on these studies,
EFSA refuses to take decisive action restricting
its use.
161 162
Te EU Commission announced in
November 2010 that it would ban BPA from
babies’ bottles but would not extend the ban to
materials such as the linings of food and drinks
cans as there was no scientifc evidence to support
such a move.
163 164
Te regulatory prejudice against open scientifc
literature and in favour of OECD- and GLP-
standardized studies has forced the public to live
with many more years of exposure to potentially
dangerous levels of BPA.
Te case of bisphenol A parallels that of
glyphosate. Many studies from the independent
scientifc literature indicate that glyphosate and
Roundup cause harm to human and animal health
and the environment at low, realistic doses. Yet
EFSA and the Commission continue to rely on a
few outdated and fawed industry studies as proof
of the herbicide’s safety.
5. Evidence of teratogenicity in independent studies
In its response to Carrasco’s fndings of
malformations in frog and chicken embryos
exposed to glyphosate and Roundup, the German
government agency BVL says: “Tere is a huge and
reliable database for developmental toxicity of
glyphosate and no evidence of teratogenicity has
been obtained.”
165
It is fair to assume that BVL’s
“huge and reliable database” stretches beyond
the industry studies to include the independent
scientifc literature. Tis interpretation is
confrmed by the fact that BVL cites Dallegrave’s
studies (2003, 2007) on the reproductive and
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 25
developmental toxicity of Roundup on rats, which
BVL claims showed “no craniofacial [of the skull
and face] malformations”.
But this is untrue. Te 2003 Dallegrave study
cited by BVL does show craniofacial malformations
from Roundup. Dallegrave found that sublethal
oral doses of Roundup cause craniofacial
ossifcation defects, loss of caudal vertebrae, and
misshapen atlas and other cervical and thoracic
vertebrae in rats. Te author did not use the word
“craniofacial” but described the nature of the
malformations, which included the craniofacial
type: “incomplete skull ossifcation and enlarged
fontanel”. Te efects were statistically signifcant
and dose-dependent, strengthening the conclusion
that they were caused by the glyphosate
formulations.
166
Another study, not cited by BVL, found that
glyphosate formulations cause craniofacial and
mouth deformities, eye abnormalities and bent,
curved tails in tadpoles.
167
Both these studies are part of what BVL calls
the “huge and reliable database” on glyphosate.
Both show evidence of teratogenicity.
168
Terefore,
BVL must publicly retract its claims of “no
craniofacial malformations” in Dallegrave’s 2003
study and of “no evidence of teratogenicity” in the
scientifc literature. In dismissing these fndings,
BVL and the EU Commission are ignoring data
that is publicly available in the peer-reviewed
literature.
5.1. How Carrasco’s fndings built on
previous studies
Carrasco built on the fndings of Dallegrave
in that he identifed the mechanism for the
teratogenic activity of Roundup/glyphosate.
Such malformations in humans and animals are
known to be linked with an excess of retinoic
acid (RA), an oxidized form of vitamin A.
169
170 171 172 173 174 175 176
Te link between RA and
malformations is the reason why pregnant
women are advised not to take vitamin A
supplements. Carrasco found that glyphosate
increased RA activity in frog embryos and that
this was the mechanism through which the
malformations occurred.
177

Carrasco says that the malformations
of the vertebrae found by Dallegrave may
represent teratogenic efects on late embryonic
development. His experiments did not extend
the observations to the same late stage of
development as Dallegrave’s. However, the
malformations he found are compatible with those
found by Dallegrave.
178
5.2. Epidemiological evidence on
glyphosate and birth defects
In response to Carrasco’s study, BVL claims: “Tere
is no epidemiological evidence in humans that
glyphosate (herbicides) might be teratogenic” and
“Tere is no clear-cut link to a hypothetic increase
in malformations in regions with extensive use of
plant protection products [pesticides, including
herbicides] in South America.”
It is true that the authorities in South America
have not carried out systematic epidemiological
studies in areas where glyphosate spraying is
widespread. Even so, enough evidence exists
to show that the rapid escalation in the rates
of birth defects coinciding with the expansion
of GM soy and glyphosate spraying is far from
“hypothetic”:
● Amnesty International reported that since
Carrasco’s research fndings were announced,
“Activists, lawyers and health workers …
have started to conduct their own studies,
registering cases of foetal malformations and
increased cancer rates in local hospitals.”
179
● An epidemiological study in Paraguay found
that women who were exposed during
pregnancy to herbicides were more likely then
unexposed women to deliver ofspring with
birth defects of a similar type to those that
Carrasco found in his experiments.
180
BVL
dismisses this study on the grounds that it is
small and does not mention glyphosate. BVL
fails to mention that the study was carried out
in an area of Paraguay (Itapua) devoted to GM
soy monocultures sprayed with glyphosate and
agrochemical mixtures. Itapua was home to
Silvino Talavera, an 11-year-old boy who died
in 2003 from agrochemical poisoning after
being sprayed. Glyphosate was one of three
agrochemicals found in his blood.
181
Tese
were the facts that gave rise to public demand
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 26
for the epidemiological study that BVL so
lightly dismisses.
● A report commissioned by the provincial
government of Chaco, Argentina, analyzed
health statistics in the town of La Leonesa and
other areas where soy and rice crops are heavily
sprayed. Te report found that the rate of birth
defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire
state of Chaco in only a decade, coinciding
with the expansion of the agricultural frontier
into the province and the corresponding rise
in agrochemical use. Te report mentioned
glyphosate as one of several agrochemicals that
were causing problems. It noted that complaints
from sprayed residents centred on “transgenic
crops, which require aerial and ground spraying
(dusting) with agrochemicals”.
182

● BVL dismisses newspaper reports of birth
defects and other severe health problems in
sprayed areas by saying “To our knowledge,
there is no scientifc confrmation of these
reports so far”. BVL fails to mention that some
of these newspaper reports mention local
epidemiological studies conducted by doctors
and scientists showing an escalation in birth
defects.
183 184
Carrasco also refers to clinical
observations in his study.
185
Te fact that these
small studies have not been translated into
English or published in a scientifc journal is
no excuse for BVL to pretend that they do not
exist. Tis is particularly true as BVL’s report
on Carrasco’s study relies for its assurances of
glyphosate’s safety on unpublished, non-peer-
reviewed industry studies.
● In March 2010, just months after the release of
Carrasco’s fndings, a court in Santa Fe province
in Argentina banned the spraying of glyphosate
and other agrochemicals near populated areas.
Te court found that farmers “have been
indiscriminately using agrochemicals such
as glyphosate, applied in open violation of
existing laws [causing] severe damage to the
environment and to the health and quality
of life of the residents”. While the decision is
limited to the area around San Jorge, other
courts are likely to follow suit if residents seek
similar court action.
186

● An epidemiological study in Ontario, Canada
found high levels of premature births and
miscarriages in female members of farming
families that used pesticides, including
glyphosate.
187
None of these cases provides unequivocal evidence
that glyphosate is the culprit in causing the harm,
since other agrochemicals are used in the areas
concerned. Tis is especially so since the spread
of glyphosate-resistant weeds accompanying the
spread of GM Roundup Ready crops has forced
farmers to use other agrochemicals, such as 2,4-D,
in addition to glyphosate.
188

189

190

191

192

193
However, this type of uncertainty is true of
all epidemiological studies, which do not show
causation but only point to an association. Tat is
why epidemiological studies need to be supported
with toxicological studies on a single substance,
such as Carrasco’s research. His work, along with
that of other independent researchers, confrms
that Roundup/glyphosate is a reproductive and
developmental toxin.
6. Exposure routes an escape for industry and
regulators
Te German agency BVL tries to dismiss Carrasco’s
study on the grounds that the exposure routes
used (injection and culturing the embryos in
solution) are unrealistic and do not refect real-
life conditions of human exposure to glyphosate.
In real life, BVL says, pregnant women would be
exposed to glyphosate through the skin (dermal)
or by inhalation.
Increasingly, industry and its allies in
government challenge the fndings of independent
toxicological studies on the basis that they used
injection or some other exposure route that
industry argues is unrealistic.
194 195
Industry
prefers oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure routes,
on the claimed grounds that they better refect
real-life exposure routes for humans.
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 27
As a bonus for industry, these exposure routes
can be used to argue for lax allowable daily
intake levels, based on the assumption that by
the time the chemical has travelled through the
protective barriers of the body, such as skin and
mucous membranes, and the liver, which helps
to break down toxins, very little of the chemical
actually reaches the body tissues. Injection, in
contrast, allows the substance to bypass these
protective barriers. In industry’s view, this results
in unrealistically high concentrations reaching the
tissues. Rejecting injection as an exposure route
also allows industry and regulators to exclude
many independent studies with inconvenient
fndings from pesticide risk assessment. A more
useful response would be to utilize the signalling
role of independent studies and repeat them,
substituting the preferred exposure route.
Tis is the approach recommended by Carrasco,
who says that any doubts regarding the realism
of his exposure routes could be cleared up by
repeating Dallegrave’s 2003 study,
196
using
inhalation as the exposure route. Tis would
refect real-life conditions of humans exposed to
glyphosate spraying in Argentina, where around
80% of exposure is by inhalation.
197
Dallegrave
found skeletal malformations in the foetuses of
rats fed orally with high doses of Roundup.
198
Carrasco suggests that the efects reported by
Dallegrave would have been even more striking
if treatment had begun on the ffth day of
pregnancy, rather than the sixth, as the relevant
structures have already begun to form by the
ffth day. Beginning treatment on the sixth day
is slightly too late to maximize the efects of
glyphosate.
199
Tis is also a shortcoming of the
industry teratogenicity tests in the DAR, most of
which begin dosing on the sixth or seventh day.
200
Interestingly, recent study fndings suggest
that cherry-picking exposure routes may not ofer
industry much protection. Two recent studies,
one on glyphosate, have come up with surprising
fndings when diferent exposure routes were
tested in the same animal:
● A study on the controversial chemical
bisphenol A (BPA) funded by the US
government’s National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
tested the efects on rats of the chemical
through two diferent exposure routes,
injection and oral dosing. Te study was
commissioned in response to industry-
generated criticism that the injection route
of exposure was not relevant to humans, as
it would lead to unrealistically high levels of
active BPA in the blood. Te results showed
that while injection showed a seven-fold
increased level over oral dosing in the frst
30 minutes, after two hours the level of
active BPA in the blood was similar for both
exposure routes. It is important to note here
that the concentration of a chemical found
in blood is only an average indicator of its
presence in the body and does not provide
evidence about its distribution to tissues,
where toxic efects occur. Interestingly, in this
experiment, both exposure routes resulted in
the same pre-cancerous toxic efects on the
prostate, seven months after exposure. Te
study concluded that route of exposure is not
as critical as had been thought and therefore,
the injection exposure route should be
acceptable for human risk assessment.
201 202
● A study examined the rate at which glyphosate
entered the body of rats and what happened to
it once it was in the body. Two exposure routes
were compared: oral dosage and injection.
Te study found that injection resulted in a
considerable difusion of glyphosate into the
tissues. When given orally, glyphosate was
more slowly absorbed but also took longer to
clear from blood than when given by injection.
Some of this glyphosate was broken down
into AMPA (glyphosate’s main metabolite/
breakdown product). Because glyphosate and
AMPA were cleared from blood more slowly
after oral dosing, they could be distributed to
body tissues to exert systemic toxic efects.
203
Tese fndings suggest that industry’s insistence
on oral, dermal, and inhalation routes is based on
incorrect assumptions about what happens to toxins
inside the body. While received doses may vary
according to diferent exposure routes, this should
be tested and not taken on faith.
Nevertheless, as we have seen above (Section
4.2), EFSA recently incorporated industry’s
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 28
preference for these exposure routes into a
Guidance document on the use of science in
industry dossiers under the new pesticide
regulation 1107/2009.
204
At one stroke, EFSA
gave industry permission to exclude from its
dossier any study that does not use oral, dermal,
or inhalation exposure routes – without any
requirement to further investigate the fndings by
repeating the study with an “approved” exposure
route. Tis will exclude the fndings of many
independent scientists, including Carrasco, from
the risk assessment.
7. The question of doses
BVL says the fact that Carrasco found
malformations from concentrations of Roundup
and glyphosate below levels used in agriculture
is irrelevant to human risk assessment. It says
comparison with internal doses received by
exposed humans would be more relevant but still
cannot tell us what really matters – the doses
received by the developing human foetus in the
uterus.
However, BVL must know it is asking for the
impossible, since it would be considered unethical
to perform toxicological experiments on human
foetuses to ascertain the doses of glyphosate they
receive – and the new EU pesticide regulation
forbids human experimentation.
Nevertheless, Carrasco points out that it
would be easy to check whether people exposed
to Roundup/glyphosate spraying accumulate
glyphosate in their blood. If they do, the
glyphosate could circulate and expose multiple
tissues in the body to diferent concentrations
of the chemical, producing diferent efects.
205

One study that measured pesticide residues in
the blood of pregnant and non-pregnant women
found glyphosate residues in the blood of 5%
of non-pregnant women.
206
A study on rabbits
suggests that glyphosate may accumulate in body
tissues, based on its damaging efects on the
sperm six weeks after exposure.
207 208
7.1. Did Carrasco use inappropriately
high doses?
In its response to Carrasco, Monsanto/Dow argues
that Carrasco used “inappropriately high” and
“unrealistic” doses.
209
Tese doses, Monsanto/Dow
says, are far higher than the already high doses
used in other experiments that have been shown
not to cause malformations.
Monsanto/Dow frst addresses the frog embryo
injection experiments. It says that Carrasco’s team
exposed two-cell frog embryos via direct injections
of 360 pg and 500 pg glyphosate acid per cell,
bypassing the developing amphibian protective
gel coat. Assuming a cell diameter of 1mm to
determine spherical volume, the cellular doses are
approximately 690 to 950 µg/L within each treated
cell.
210
But this is not an inappropriately high dose.
This is made clear by some simple calculations
based on Monsanto/Dow’s own paper. The
Monsanto/Dow authors state elsewhere in their
paper that a 400 mg/kg dose of glyphosate,
delivered through feeding, results in a blood
concentration of 4.6 µg/ml. Animal studies
typically use between 50 and 500 mg/kg bw/d
doses. Making a linear extrapolation (as the
authors themselves do for other purposes),
a 50 mg/kg dose should result in a blood
concentration of 0.575 µg/ml, or 575 µg/L.
Therefore the range of blood concentrations
achieved in animal studies would be in the range
of 575 to 5750 µg/L. Clearly, the concentrations
achieved in the frog embryos (690 to 950 µg/L)
are comparable to the blood concentrations
achieved in animal feeding studies. So the
Monsanto/Dow authors’ claim that these
are unreasonably high concentrations is not
warranted.
Above-lethal doses?
Turning to Carrasco’s frog embryo incubation
experiments, Monsanto/Dow says that the
concentrations used were 9–15 times greater than
the acute LC50 value for frog embryos of the same
species (LC50 is the concentration needed to kill
50% of experimental animals).
211
Monsanto/Dow
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 29
cites as its authority for this argument a study by
Edginton and colleagues (2004).
212
But Monsanto/Dow is not comparing like
with like. Carrasco points out that Edginton’s
team used a diferent glyphosate formulation,
which could have diferent efects and a diferent
LC50 value.
213
Edginton’s team stated that the
surfactant POEA was the major toxic component
of the formulation, so the two experiments
are not comparable: it is not known to what
extent the toxic efects were due to the POEA.
POEA is known to have a synergistic efect with
glyphosate, enhancing its toxicity.
214
Carrasco
adds that the LC50 value is not relevant to an
examination of what happens to the surviving
embryos over time.
Moreover, Carrasco says that the doses he
used were extremely low. Even the injection
doses were far below what has been accepted
as lethal.
215
Carrasco reports that treatments
at 1/5000 to 1/3000 dilutions of glyphosate
herbicide resulted in extremely low mortality of
frog embryos, nowhere near the 50% mortality
that would be expected at the true LC50.
216

Tus the Monsanto/Dow authors’ claim that the
efects observed by Carrasco were acute toxicity
efects from inappropriately high doses is not
supported.
Carrasco’s argument is confrmed by the
study of Dallegrave (2003), which found similar
malformations at sublethal doses.
217
Monsanto/
Dow avoids this issue by not even mentioning
Dallegrave’s study in its response to Carrasco.
The chicken egg experimental doses
Monsanto/Dow says that Carrasco’s experiments
with fertilized chicken eggs used an “unrealistic”
exposure route by “opening a window in the shell
and directly dosing 20 µL of 1/3500 and 1/4500
dilutions of glyphosate formulated product (2.0
and 1.6 µg/chicken embryo).” Te implication
is that due to this choice of exposure route, the
doses that the embryos were exposed to were
unrealistically high.
But this is untrue. Using the Monsanto/Dow
authors’ own estimate that 20µL of a 1/4500
dilution of glyphosate formulated product
translates into about 2 µg glyphosate injected
into the egg, and assuming that the volume of an
egg is about 35 mL, the actual concentration of
glyphosate within the egg would be about 57 µg/L.
Tis is much lower than the blood concentrations
of glyphosate that would be expected in animal
toxicity studies (575 to 5750 µg/L, see above),
according to Monsanto/Dow’s own calculation
methods.
Inappropriate comparison with rat study
As evidence for its argument that Carrasco’s
doses were unrealistically high, Monsanto/Dow
cites a study on the fate of glyphosate orally fed
to rats. Te study found that a 400 mg/kg oral
dose of glyphosate resulted in a maximum blood
concentration of 4.6 µg/mL.
218
Monsanto/Dow
extrapolates from this study to calculate that the
dose necessary to produce a blood concentration
in rats of 72 µg/mL (as in the low dose of
72000 µg/L in Carrasco’s frog embryo culture
experiments) would be over 6200 mg/kg bw (72
µg/mL / 4.6 µg/mL x 400 mg/kg bw = 6261 mg/
kg bw).
Tus, Monsanto/Dow calculates that the in
vitro concentration used by Carrasco’s team was
equivalent to a glyphosate oral dose to rats of
6261 mg/kg bw. Monsanto/Dow says:
Tis dose is over an order of magnitude greater
than the already high doses of glyphosate shown
not to cause developmental or reproductive efects
in rats and rabbits (NOAELs), which are used for
risk assessment purposes by some regulatory
authorities to establish safe human allowable daily
intakes (ADIs).
219
But the comparison made here is not appropriate.
It is not justifed to assume that an experimental
model designed to track the fate of orally
administered glyphosate in rats can be used to
predict frog embryo uptake of glyphosate from
the culture solution. Monsanto/Dow incorrectly
attempts to make a parallel between the cells of
the rat, bathed in blood containing 4.6 µg/mL of
glyphosate, and a frog embryo bathed in a medium
containing 72 µg/mL glyphosate, and says that the
concentration used for the frog embryos is huge
and physiologically inappropriate compared to
that used in the rats.
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 30
Tis conclusion depends on the assumption
that glyphosate crosses the membrane of the rat
cells and the outer membrane of the frog embryo
with equal ease. However, these two membranes
are very diferent in structure and function. Te
frog embryo membrane is the embryo’s sole
defense against every physical and chemical chal-
lenge that it might encounter and must therefore
be very protective, while the cells of the rat are de-
fended by many diferent protective mechanisms,
which operate before a challenge ever reaches the
individual cells of the rat. Tis makes it unneces-
sary for the cellular membrane of rat cells to pos-
sess the protective function and structure of the
frog embryo membrane.
Tus we would expect that exposing rat cells
to blood containing a concentration of 4.6 µg/
mL glyphosate would result in a much higher
concentration of glyphosate within the rat cells
than would be the case if a frog embryo were
exposed to that concentration, and that it would
be reasonable to expect that a signifcantly higher
concentration of glyphosate, for instance, 72 µg/
mL, would be required to achieve a concentration
of glyphosate within the frog embryo that would
be equivalent to the concentration achieved within
the rat cells when exposed to blood containing 4.6
µg/mL of glyphosate.
Tus Monsanto’s claim that the concentration
used by Carrasco is extremely high and is equiva-
lent to an oral dose of 6261 mg/kg bw is a gross
overestimation.
Te evidence that the concentrations of glypho-
sate used in the frog embryo studies were appro-
priate is Carrasco’s observation that mortality of
the embryos was very low, yet dose-dependent
efects of glyphosate were observed.
Monsanto/Dow claims that “high doses of
glyphosate” have been “shown not to cause
developmental or reproductive efects in rats and
rabbits” in studies used by regulatory authorities
to set the acceptable daily intake or ADI. But this
is false, as we have shown above (see Section
3). Tese industry studies did show teratogenic
efects of glyphosate, even at low doses. Te
ADI set by Germany ignores these efects and is
incorrect.
Body burdens of glyphosate
Monsanto/Dow dismisses the concerns raised by
Carrasco and colleagues about the risk to people
living close to felds where glyphosate herbicides
are sprayed. Monsanto/Dow uses fndings from
the Farm Family Exposure Study (FFES)
220
as
evidence that the doses used in Carrasco’s work
and his claim of a link between pesticide exposure
and birth defects in Argentina are unrealistic.
Te FFES measures urinary glyphosate
concentrations for farmers, their spouses, and
their children. Te study concludes, reassuringly,
that the maximum systemic dose to spouses in the
FFES was 0.04 µg/kg body weight, with more than
95% of the spouse exposures below the limit of
detection.
But the FFES authors themselves acknowledge
that the results of their US-based study depend
on the method of glyphosate application, the
procedures used by the farmers, and the care
with which those procedures are carried out.
Te circumstances in Argentina difer from
those in the US on all these counts. Much of the
glyphosate application is conducted by aerial
spraying and reports from Argentina suggest that
little care is taken of impacts on the environment
or human health. On this basis, it is not justifed
to use the FFES as the basis for evaluating
Carrasco’s work.
Te authors of the FFES acknowledge that
the nature of the study may well have motivated
participating farmers to take extra care in their
work and that therefore this study may not
refect real world conditions, even in the US. It
should also be remembered that the FFES was
sponsored by the pesticide industry, as were
other studies that Monsanto/Dow cite to back up
their claims of the safety of glyphosate. Sponsors,
as stated in the paper, were Bayer, Dow, DuPont,
FMC, Monsanto, Syngenta, and the American
Chemistry Council. Te lead author, Acquavella,
was an employee of Monsanto. A second author
was an employee of the industry consulting frm
Exponent.
For all these reasons, we suggest that the FFES
is likely to paint a picture that is not “real-world”,
but highly idealized. As stated by Mage in his
critique of the FFES, a study that randomly and
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 31
frequently assesses glyphosate burdens in farmers
and their families over a long period of time would
provide a more realistic assessment of exposure.
221
Tis is borne out by results of another study,
which is relevant to this discussion but is not
mentioned by the Monsanto/Dow authors. In a
study investigating pesticide exposure in farm and
non-farm families in Iowa, Curwin (2007) found
that 75% of farmers, 67% of wives, and 81% of
farmers’ children were carrying urinary burdens
of more than 900 ppb of glyphosate (0.9 mg/kg
bw). In contrast, the FFES reported average daily
urinary burdens of glyphosate ranging from 1 to
6.4 ppb on diferent days of the study for farmers,
and with averages close to zero ppb for wives and
children (less than 25% of subjects were reported
to have any detectable urinary glyphosate burden).
Regarding the FFES, we conclude that, as
has been found time and time again, industry-
sponsored studies generate results that are
unrealistic, when compared with independent
studies such as Curwin’s.
We also conclude from all the evidence above
that Carrasco’s doses were realistic and that
they add to the existing body of industry and
independent studies showing that glyphosate is
teratogenic.
8. The choice of experimental animals
BVL says in its response to Carrasco that while
developmental mechanisms in frogs and chicken
embryos are similar to those of humans, they
respond diferently to toxins because frogs and
chickens lack the protection of a placental barrier –
their embryos develop outside the mother’s body.
BVL says humans and other mammals, in contrast,
have a placental barrier that lends some protection
against toxins passing from the mother’s blood
supply to that of the foetus. Terefore, BVL says,
fndings in frog and chicken embryos cannot be
extrapolated to humans and doses of glyphosate
reaching the human foetus are unknown.
However, BVL fails to acknowledge research
showing that a signifcant percentage of
glyphosate crosses the human placental barrier
and enters the foetal compartment.
222
BVL must
produce data to back up its implication that the
human placental barrier provides protection
against glyphosate exposures.
In addition, Dallegrave’s 2003 study found
skeletal malformations in rats treated with
Roundup.
223
Rats are mammals, so BVL cannot
dismiss this study on grounds of the wrong
choice of experimental animal. But BVL fnds
another reason to dismiss Dallegrave’s study,
wrongly claiming that it found no craniofacial
malformations (see Section 5, above).
9. South America’s responsibility?
BVL implies that the problems with glyphosate
raised by Carrasco’s research are South America’s
responsibility. It says, “Even if there were
indications for an increase in malformations
because of extensive exposure to pesticides in
South America, the state authorities in these
countries would be responsible to initiate more
in-depth investigations. Taking into account the
very diferent application conditions and the
uncertainties with regard to the plant protection
products and human exposure, such fndings would
not automatically give rise to concern about the
safety of glyphosate-based herbicides in Europe.”
It is true that application conditions and
exposures in Europe would be different from
those in South America. But BVL and the
Commission have made no attempt to define
how they would differ, especially in the light of
the possible cultivation of glyphosate-tolerant
crops in the EU. BVL’s statement is inadequate,
for the following reasons.
Toxicological fndings are not confned
within national boundaries
In its discussion of possible efects of Roundup/
glyphosate on humans, BVL avoids mentioning
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 32
the toxicological fndings on Roundup and
glyphosate. Some of these, such as those
of Séralini’s team, found efects in human
cells and are relevant to humans. While BVL
disingenuously confnes its discussion of efects
on humans to South America, toxicological
fndings in human cells, and fndings in mammals
such as in Dallegrave’s studies, apply to all
countries where Roundup/glyphosate is used.
Also, glyphosate-tolerant crops carrying
glyphosate residues enter the European food
chain via animal feed and soy products eaten
by humans. Te Commission must investigate
current and potential future exposures and
their relationship to fndings in the independent
scientifc literature.
The political climate in South America is
problematic
Some South American economies have become
highly dependent on the GM soy/glyphosate
agricultural model, so central and regional
government authorities are reluctant to challenge
it. Te Argentine government has come to rely on
export taxes on soybeans, which reached 35 per
cent in 2010.
224
In Argentina, after Carrasco announced
his findings, a group of environmental
lawyers launched a lawsuit petitioning the
government to ban glyphosate. But Guillermo
Cal, executive director of CASAFE (Argentina’s
crop protection trade association), said a ban
would mean “we couldn’t do agriculture in
Argentina”.
225
Argentine scientists and experts who have
produced evidence of problems with the GM
soy/glyphosate model report harassment and
censorship.
226 227 228
But even in these difcult
conditions, they and their international colleagues
have collectively produced more than enough
evidence to indicate that there are serious problems
with the GM soy/glyphosate agricultural model.
Europe has a moral responsibility to its
supplier countries
As much of the glyphosate-tolerant soy sprayed
with glyphosate herbicides in South America
is imported to feed European livestock,Europe
POEA: Case study in regulatory
weakness
BVL’s only decisive recommendation in its response
to Carrasco is that more toxicity tests should be
conducted on the effects on aquatic organisms of
the Roundup adjuvant or added ingredient, POEA
(polyethoxylated tallow amine). POEA is added to
glyphosate herbicides as a surfactant or wetting
agent, to enable the glyphosate to penetrate the
plant. Unfortunately, POEA is highly toxic to human
cells as well as increasing the toxicity of glyphosate
by allowing it to penetrate the cells more easily.
232

While action on POEA would be welcome,
focusing only on this substance distracts from
Carrasco’s fnding that pure glyphosate is a
developmental and reproductive toxin.
233
The case of POEA shows the weakness of EU
regulators in dealing with industry. The German
government recommended as long ago as 1999 that
POEA should be phased out in the EU. Monsanto
disagreed.
234
Eleven years later in 2010, the German
government was still asking for action on POEA – and
still being ignored by industry and EU regulators.
235
It
has resorted to taking its own measures to restrict
the use of POEA within Germany.
is to some extent responsible for the situation
in South America. The principle of moral
responsibility for human rights abuses in
supplier countries has been accepted since
eighteenth-century debates about the slave
trade.
Europe is considering adopting the GM
crops/glyphosate farming model
Applications are in the approvals pipeline for
the cultivation in Europe of several glyphosate-
tolerant GM maize varieties, including
Monsanto’s NK603
230
and MON89034 x
MON88017.
231
If glyphosate-tolerant crops
are approved for cultivation in the EU, then
the South American experience with GM soy
and glyphosate could be replicated in Europe.
BVL’s attempt to draw a curtain over the South
American experience is irresponsible because it
ignores the potential impact of this carcinogen
and teratogen on European farmers, their
families, and the public.
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 33
10. Science divided
Carrasco notes in his reply to Monsanto/Dow that
discussion of toxics risk assessment has separated
into two diverging strands:
Rather than pointing out shortcomings of our
research, the [Monsanto/Dow] letter illustrates
the increasing difculty in dialogues between
those with a vested interest in product sales and
independent researchers who wish simply to
understand whether the said products are safe.
236
It is to be expected that industry should look after
its own interests. But it is inexcusable for the
public body BVL to follow Monsanto/Dow in what
seems to be a desperate attempt to dismiss any
possibility of Roundup/glyphosate’s teratogenicity
rather than ordering further investigations to
clear up uncertainties. However, the existing
body of evidence on Roundup/glyphosate is more
than sufcient to justify that BVL advise the EU
Commission to invoke the precautionary principle
and conduct an immediate review of the herbicide.
11. Another worrying study on Roundup dismissed
BVL’s response to Carrasco’s study was not
a one-off. In 2009, BVL issued a similarly
dismissive response
237
to a study by Benachour
and Séralini, which found that Roundup caused
total cell death in human umbilical, embryonic,
and placental cells within 24 hours.
238
In these
experiments, Roundup obtained from the
market was diluted by 100,000 times – far below
the concentrations used when the chemical is
sprayed on GM RR crops.
Te researchers tested Roundup formulations,
as well as pure glyphosate, AMPA (glyphosate’s
main breakdown product), and the adjuvant
POEA. Tey concluded that the presence of
adjuvants increases the permeability of human
cells to Roundup and amplifes the toxicity of
glyphosate:
Te proprietary mixtures available on the market
could cause cell damage and even death around
residual levels to be expected, especially in food and
feed derived from R (Roundup) formulation-treated
crops.
239
BVL’s response to this complex and worrying
study was as brief as it was inadequate. Passing
over the fndings on the toxicity of glyphosate and
AMPA, BVL only admitted that POEA (“tallow
amines”) was a problem. It said it had asked
manufacturers of glyphosate herbicides to replace
tallow amines with less problematic ingredients
within two years. Tat was the sum of BVL’s
recommendations.
In choosing to focus solely on the adjuvant
POEA, BVL simply ignored all the harmful efects
that the researchers found with the Roundup
formulations as a whole, their active ingredient
glyphosate, and glyphosate’s main breakdown
product, AMPA. So Roundup continues to be
marketed without restriction and people continue
to be put at risk.
12. What’s wrong with the current approval of
glyphosate?
Glyphosate’s current approval in the EU is based
on the 2002 review, carried out under the old
pesticides regulation 91/414.
240
Te 2002 review
assesses glyphosate, the glyphosate derivative
herbicide glyphosate trimesium, and the glyphosate
metabolite (breakdown product) AMPA.
Te review exemplifes the general failings of
the old pesticides approvals system:
● Insulation from independent peer reviewed
scientifc fndings
● Old, outdated, and badly informed claims for
glyphosate’s safety go unchallenged
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 34
● Virtually exclusive reliance on industry studies
for the safety assessment, with the inherent
conficts of interest
● Reliance on studies with old and outdated
protocols
● Reliance on dubious and outdated assumptions
● Lack of transparency
● Failure to test the complete glyphosate
formulations as they are sold.
A detailed breakdown of these factors follows.
12.1 Open peer reviewed scientifc
literature is denied
Tere is broad agreement in the scientifc community
that peer reviewed publication is the best currently
available method to ensure reliable scientifc data.
Tere are undoubted faws with the peer review
process – including publication bias, where certain
types of results are more likely to be published
than others,
241 242 243
and pressure being placed
on journal editors not to publish, or to retract,
certain fndings.
244 245 246
Some journals have been
generated or “captured” by industry and use
industry-connected peer reviewers.
247
In spite of these problems, the strength of
the peer review process is that studies in the
open literature can be evaluated by independent
experts. Teir fndings can be confrmed, built
upon, or contradicted by further studies.
Te public, too, has been educated to respect
the peer review process and to expect scientifc
claims to be validated in this way. Te part-
industry-funded UK-based group Sense About
Science, which calls itself “an independent
charitable trust promoting good science and
evidence in public debates”
248
and promotes
the safety of controversial technologies like
genetically modifed foods,
249
set up an entire
project to convince the public that peer review is
“an essential arbiter of scientifc quality”.
250
In its
guide for the public on peer review, I Don’t Know
What to Believe, Sense About Science says:
Unpublished research is no help to anyone.
Scientists can’t repeat or use it and as a society we
can’t base decisions about our public safety – or our
family’s health for example – on work that has a
high chance of being fawed.
251
Given such infuential messages, it would shock
the public to realize that in the pesticide approvals
process, peer reviewed open literature is not
normally considered. Te studies on which the
2002 EU review of glyphosate is based, as is
the norm with pesticides, were generated and
submitted by industry.
252
Te conclusions about
the health hazards of glyphosate in the 2002 EU
review are strikingly at variance with the fndings
from the independent scientifc literature, as the
analysis below shows.
Genotoxicity
Te 2002 review fatly states that glyphosate and
glyphosate trimesium are “not genotoxic” (causing
damage to DNA). It is difcult to understand
how this conclusion could be reached, given that
even industry studies from the 1980s found that
Roundup caused chromosome aberrations and
gene mutations in mice lymphoid cells.
253 254
In addition, a number of studies showing that
glyphosate and Roundup are genotoxic existed in
the peer reviewed literature even at the time of the
2002 review. Findings include:
● Roundup increases the frequency of gender-
linked lethal recessive mutations in fruit fies
(these mutations are normally only seen in
males).
255
● Roundup increases the frequency of DNA
adducts (the binding to genetic material of
reactive molecules that lead to mutations) in
the liver and kidneys of mice at all three doses
tested. Te response was dose-dependent.
256
● Roundup causes increased frequency of sister
chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes
(white blood cells), even at the lowest dose
tested.
257
● Mice injected with glyphosate and Roundup
show increased frequency of chromosome
damage and increased DNA damage in bone
marrow, liver, and kidney.
258
Numerous additional recent studies confrm
genotoxicity:
● Roundup damages the DNA in the blood cells
of European eels at environmentally relevant
concentrations.
259
● Roundup has adverse efects on the cells of
various organs in fsh exposed at sublethal
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 35
concentrations of 5–15 ppm (a typical
concentration in a post-application site). Efects
include hyperplasia (increased proliferation
of cells) and increased activity of metabolic
enzymes.
260
● Glyphosate-based herbicides cause increased
frequency of DNA strand breaks and cell
nucleus abnormalities indicative of mutagenic
stress in goldfsh at low doses (5–15 ppm).
261
● Glyphosate-based herbicides cause DNA
damage and endocrine disruption in human
cells at levels up to 800 times lower than
glyphosate residue levels allowed in some
GM crops used for animal feed in the United
States.
262
● Glyphosate-based herbicides inhibit RNA
transcription and delay hatching in sea urchin
embryos at a concentration well below that
recommended for commercial spray application.
Te Roundup surfactant polyoxyethylene amine
(POEA) is highly toxic to the embryos when
tested alone and so could contribute to the
inhibition of hatching.
263
● Glyphosate-based herbicides and glyphosate’s
main metabolite (environmental breakdown
product), AMPA, alter cell cycle checkpoints
in sea urchin embryos by interfering with the
physiological DNA repair machinery. Such cell
cycle dysfunction is seen from the frst cell
division in the sea urchin embryos.
264 265 266 267
Te failure of cell cycle checkpoints is known
to lead to genomic instability and the possible
development of cancer in humans. Studies
on glyphosate and AMPA suggest that the
irreversible damage that they cause to DNA
may increase the risk of cancer.
268 269
● An epidemiological study in Ecuador found
a higher degree of DNA damage in people
living in an area that was aerially sprayed with
glyphosate compared with those living 80
kilometres away.
270
AMPA, glyphosate’s main breakdown product
(metabolite), is also genotoxic in isolation.
Te 2002 review, on the basis of the industry
studies, calls AMPA “less toxic than the parent
compound”.
271
Te ECCO Panel states, “AMPA is
not of toxicological signifcance.”
272
However, an
independent study found that AMPA is genotoxic,
damaging DNA in human cells at very low doses
and in mice at a dose of 200–400mg/kg.
273
Carcinogenicity
Te 2002 review claims “no evidence” of
carcinogenicity for glyphosate and glyphosate
trimesium. But glyphosate was known to have
carcinogenic efects long before the 2002 review.
Two long-term studies on rats were conducted
in 1979–1981 and 1988–1990.
274
Te rats received
3, 10 and 32 mg/kg of glyphosate per day in
the frst study and 100, 410 and 1060 mg/kg
per day in the second. Te frst study found a
signifcant increase in tumours in the testes of
rats fed glyphosate, but the same efect was not
found in the second test using the higher doses.
On this basis, glyphosate was excluded from the
carcinogenic category.
275 276
Tis move was based on outdated and
incorrect assumptions about toxicology. It used
to be thought that toxic efects increased in
proportion to dose, and that there is a safe level
of a chemical, below which toxic efects are not
found. But toxicologists now know that these
assumptions are not always true. Some chemicals
have more potent efects (notably endocrine
efects) at low doses than higher doses.
277
In
some cases, no safe threshold can be found.
278
279
However, regulators have not revised their
conclusions on glyphosate based on up-to-date
scientifc knowledge.
Studies from the independent literature
also show that Roundup and glyphosate have
carcinogenic efects:
● Glyphosate induces cancer in mouse skin
280

● Epidemiological studies show a link between
Roundup/glyphosate exposure and two types of
cancer: multiple myeloma
281
and non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma.
282 283 284
● Other studies (mentioned under Genotoxicity,
above) show that Roundup, glyphosate, and its
metabolite AMPA cause changes to cells and DNA
that are known to lead to cancer.
285 286

287 288 289 290
Neurotoxicity
Te 2002 review of glyphosate claims “no relevant
efects” in tests for delayed neurotoxicity. But
glyphosate is an organophosphate, a class of
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 36
chemicals known to have neurotoxic efects, so claims
of “no relevant” neurotoxic efects demand a strong
and transparent evidence base to back them up.
In fact, studies from the open literature have
found neurotoxic efects of glyphosate:
● An epidemiological study carried out in
Minnesota, USA found that the children of
pesticide applicators exposed to glyphosate
had an increased incidence of neurobehavioral
disorders.
291
● In an acute poisoning incident, a man who
accidentally sprayed himself with glyphosate
developed the neurological disorder
Parkinsonism.
292
● A toxicological study on rats found that
glyphosate depletes the neurotransmitters
serotonin (serotonin is associated with feelings
of well-being and is known as the “happiness
hormone”) and dopamine.
293
● Glyphosate causes a loss of mitochondrial
transmembrane potential (a hallmark of cellular
injuries) in rat brain cells.
294
● Glyphosate and Roundup act synergistically
with the organophosphate insecticide
diazinon in neuroblastoma (nerve cancer)
cells. Glyphosate and Roundup become
more neurotoxic when the cells have been
pre-exposed to diazinon. Roundup is more
toxic than glyphosate and produces efects
at a concentration as low as 10 ppb, which is
equivalent to a glyphosate concentration of
0.5 nM. Unusual dose-response relationships
are found with both glyphosate and
Roundup, which the authors say merit
further investigation as they indicate that the
relationship between concentration and toxicity
at low concentrations may not be entirely
predictable.
295
Reproductive and developmental toxicity
and endocrine disruption
The 2002 review notes that studies on
glyphosate and glyphosate trimesium found
reduced pup weight and decrease in litter size
and pup body weight gain, but says these effects
are confined to high, “parentally toxic doses”.
The review adds that effects include lower
number of viable foetuses and reduced foetal
weight, retarded ossification (bone formation),
and higher incidence of skeletal and/or
visceral (internal organ) anomalies. Effects of
glyphosate trimesium include increased post-
implantation losses (miscarriage), reduced
foetal weight, and increased incidence of rib
“variations” at maternally toxic doses.
Te 2002 review gives a developmental
NOAEL (the highest level at which the efect
being looked for is not found) of 300 mg/
kg bw/d for glyphosate and 40 mg/kg bw/d
for glyphosate trimesium. However, studies
from the open literature have found adverse
reproductive and developmental efects, in
some cases at much lower levels. While we have
discussed some of these studies in the above
sections, we provide a comprehensive summary
as follows:
● Glyphosate herbicide alters hormone levels
in female catfsh and decreases egg viability.
Te study concludes that the presence of
glyphosate in water is harmful to catfsh
reproduction.
296
● Roundup disrupts production of the steroid
hormone progesterone in mouse cells
by disrupting expression of a regulatory
protein.
297
● Roundup causes decreased sperm numbers and
increased abnormal sperms in rats.
298
● A commercial formulation of glyphosate was
found to be a potent endocrine disruptor in
rats, causing disturbances in their reproductive
development after they were exposed during
puberty.
299
● In human cells, glyphosate-based herbicides
prevent the action of androgens, the
masculinising hormones, at levels up to
800 times lower than glyphosate residue
levels allowed in some GM crops used for
animal feed in the United States. DNA
damage is found in human cells treated with
glyphosate-based herbicides at these levels.
Glyphosate-based herbicides also disrupt
the action and formation of estrogens,
the feminizing hormones.
300
This in vitro
study found the first toxic effects of
glyphosate-based herbicide at 5 ppm, and
the first endocrine disrupting actions at
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 37
0.5 ppm – 800 times less than the 400 ppm
level authorized by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in some animal
feeds.
301 302
● Glyphosate acts synergistically with estrogen,
disrupting estrogen-regulated gene expression
in human cells.
303
● Glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells
and this efect increases in the presence of
Roundup adjuvants. Roundup acts as an
endocrine disruptor, inhibiting an enzyme
responsible for estrogen production. Te
authors conclude that Roundup could cause
reproductive problems in humans at levels
below those used in agriculture.
304
Te
authors suggest that their results could
explain epidemiological fndings of increased
premature births and miscarriages in
female members of farming families using
glyphosate.
305 306
● Glyphosate and Roundup damage human
embryonic cells and placental cells, in
concentrations well below those recommended
for agricultural use. Te study’s authors
conclude that Roundup may interfere
with human reproduction and embryonic
development.
307
● Te foetuses of rats fed orally with high doses
of Roundup had increased incidence of skeletal
malformations.
308
● Roundup causes malformations in frog
and chicken embryos at doses much lower
than those used in agricultural spraying.
309
Malformations were of the craniofacial and
neural tube type (of the skull, face, and
developing brain and spinal cord).
Conclusion of open peer-reviewed
literature on health effects
Both the existing pesticides regulation, 91/414,
and the new regulation, 1107/2009, require
that a pesticide should not have any harmful
effect on human or animal health.
310 311
The
new regulation is stricter, since “vulnerable
groups” must be considered in the human
health assessment and known “cumulative
and synergistic effects” of the pesticide must
be addressed.
312
Clearly, glyphosate herbicides
do not even meet the requirements of the old
regulation, so their approval should be reviewed
immediately with a view to restricting or
banning their use.
12.2. Outdated and badly informed claims
go unchallenged
The discussion between industry, the
rapporteur Germany, member states, and
the ECCO Panel that led to the 2002 review
includes numerous old, outdated, and badly
informed claims for the safety of glyphosate and
its breakdown product AMPA. Many of these
claims have been superseded or discredited by
independent studies – but they passed through
the review process unchallenged and have
remained in place in the regulatory system ever
since. Similarly, concerns are raised but not
followed up.
Anyone who is informed about the current
state of knowledge on glyphosate cannot fail to
be alarmed by these claims and uninvestigated
concerns. Tere are too many to cover fully in this
report, but a few examples follow.
Unresolved concerns about salivary gland
lesions
Concerns about repeated fndings of salivary
gland lesions in experimental animals treated with
glyphosate are expressed throughout the DAR
materials and mentioned in the 2002 fnal review
report. However, nobody seems to know what the
lesions mean, and no attempt is made to fnd out.
A comment by the ECCO Panel is typical:
Histological efects were observed in salivary glands
in the 6 and 12 month dog study, however, since
these lesions were considered without functional
consequence or long term efects they were not
considered to be adverse.
313

Te regulators should have insisted that these
experiments be continued for a longer period,
so that the true consequences of these lesions
were revealed. Salivary gland lesions can be pre-
cancerous.
Failure to consider endocrine disruption
Te ECCO Panel says, “Various literature
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 38
references suggest that glyphosate is an
endocrine disruptor.” Again, the panel has no
idea what to make of these fndings: “Te group
recognised that there was no guidance available
regarding how such information should be used
so it was agreed that the rapporteur should
consult the Chairperson of the mammalian
toxicology meeting at the BBA [German Federal
Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer
Protection] to see if this is a concern.”
314
Te
fnal review report of 2002 does not mention
endocrine disruption – sufcient reason in
itself why the current approval of glyphosate
is inadequate. However, independent studies
show that glyphosate herbicides are endocrine
disruptors.
315 316 317
Failure to consider the impact of
glyphosate-resistant weeds
Te DAR and 2002 review report were compiled
before the problem of glyphosate-resistant
weeds became widespread. Monsanto claims in
the DAR materials that it has tested over 500
samples and found that only two locations in
Australia were afected. Te plant involved was
an annual rye grass.
318
Te UK Pesticides Safety
Directorate (PSD) comments, “It is likely that
resistance is low, although there have been two
further reports of possible cases in America
and Asia.”
319
Since the EU Commission’s 2002
approval of glyphosate, a large number of
independent studies and media reports have
documented the extensive and serious problems
caused by glyphosate-resistant superweeds,
especially in North and South America.
320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332 333 334
Glyphosate’s
current approval does not take this into
consideration and a critical re-assessment is
urgently needed.
In addition, the risk assessment should
consider the inevitable shift in herbicide use after
glyphosate-resistant weed populations become
widespread. Te published studies and articles
cited above show that weeds evolve resistance
to glyphosate within 2–6 years of cultivation
of genetically modifed (GM) Roundup Ready
crops. Tis is less time than the approval period
of a pesticide in the EU – formerly ten years,
now 15 years. Once resistant weed populations
are established, farmers have to resort to other
potentially even more toxic herbicides, including
2,4-D, to try to control glyphosate-resistant
weeds.
335 336 337 338
Te chemical companies Dow, DuPont,
Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta have responded to
the superweeds problem by “engineering crop
varieties that will enable farmers to spray on
the tough old weedkillers freely, instead of
having to apply them surgically in order to spare
crops”, according to a report in the Wall Street
Journal.
339
Bayer has patented a GM soybean
with tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate
ammonium.
340
Studies show that glufosinate
ammonium is a neurotoxin
341
and causes birth
defects in mice.
342
Monsanto plans to release a
dicamba-resistant GM soybean in 2013.
343
Tese
developments are relevant to Europe as Romania
is lobbying the EU for permission to cultivate
GM soy.
344
A new generation of herbicide-resistant crops
is being engineered with stacked traits to tolerate
multiple herbicides.
345
But weed scientists have
commented that these new GM crops will only
buy growers a little more time until weeds evolve
resistance to other herbicides.
346
In fact, weed
species resistant to dicamba and 2,4-D already
exist.
347 348
Te existing approval of glyphosate fails to take
into consideration the chemical treadmill resulting
from the emergence of glyphosate-resistant
weeds – and the consequences to human health
and the environment. While a full consideration
of this issue is beyond the scope of this report, it
needs to be addressed in the risk assessment of
glyphosate as it is a hazard inherent in the use of
the herbicide.
Incorrect claim about biological
availability of glyphosate
Te UK Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD)
notes that the issue of a waiting period between
glyphosate spraying and re-entry into felds in
order to protect humans, livestock, and plants,
is not properly dealt with in Germany’s DAR.
However, the PSD immediately dismisses this
concern:
Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? 39
Tis should not be an issue for glyphosate as it is
not usually biologically available once it contacts soil.
349
But this claim was not true even at the time of
the DAR. A 1983 study showed that glyphosate
persists in sandy loam soil and is not inactivated
in the 120 days prior to planting. Plants growing
in the glyphosate-treated soil showed decreased
nitrogen fxation, root nodule numbers and
root weights – indicating that glyphosate was
biologically available and toxic to plants 120 days
after application.
350